A Deadly Silence:
The Debate Over Palesteinian Textbooks
By Simon Kirk
PDF Version | Print Version
Palestinian textbooks have attracted widespread attention for their perceived anti-Semitism, incitement of hatred, and denial of the State of Israel. This viewpoint has been asserted vigorously by a variety of critics, the most prominent and effective of whom is the Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace (CMIP). Indeed, such has been the effect of CMIP’s reports that the actual content of the Palestinian textbooks almost becomes irrelevant: the negative view of the books is so widespread that the effect of the textbooks on the conflict is already manifest. As Nathan Brown—professor at George Washington University (and CMIP’s chief critic)—notes, “almost any discussion of education in the Middle East posits it as part of the problem rather than part of the solution.”1
In actuality, these negative assertions about textbooks are oversimplified. Nobody (including Nathan Brown) denies that the textbooks used by Palestinian children prior to 1994 were anti-Semitic and otherwise controversial. However, the textbooks used after 1967 in Gaza and the West Bank originated from Egypt and Jordan.2 Moreover, these textbooks have been recognized as unsuitable by the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) and are being phased out and replaced by PNA authored ‘peace orientated’ textbooks.
These new textbooks, written by the PNA since 1994—and more specifically since 2000—are a more complex problem. Although they are not as aggressively anti-Semitic or anti-Israel as the books they replaced, the post 1994 and 2000 textbooks are far from perfect. The new textbooks do not show any specific signs of incitement or anti-Semitism. However, they are ambiguous on certain key issues such as depictions of maps, explanations of holy sites, and references to jihad. This ambiguity has given impetus to critics who claim, for example, that the new Palestinian textbooks still incite hatred and call for jihad. This is not exactly the case. It is true that the ambiguous maps, the exclusion of discussions of peace relating specifically to Israel, and the selectivity over historical facts—specifically, overlooking any Jewish historical link to the land—is unhelpful to the cause of peace. However, if the Palestinian textbooks do not contain a ‘peace’ curriculum, they do not contain a ‘war’ curriculum either.3 While ‘jihad’ is a concept that appears—particularly in textbooks released in the last two years—it does not necessarily imply aggression toward Israel and could be considered a protective proclamation over land the PNA considers its own. Brown notes that Western countries often make similar statements using different language. There is no call to war with Israel. Furthermore, although peace principles are not extended specifically to Jews and Israel, if properly taught and understood, that extension would be automatic. Nathan Brown convincingly argues that the silence of the textbooks on many issues is due to ‘awkwardness’—to an inability to make firm decisions on issues where there is no consensus among the Palestinian people. This is contrasted by a firm approach where there is consensus, such as the constant references to Jerusalem as the ‘capital’ of the ‘Homeland.’
A debate that implicitly runs through all the commentaries (ranging from Brown, to CMIP and elsewhere) is over the question of context. For external critics of the Palestinian curriculum, the context, or situation on the ground, is irrelevant. The textbooks should strive for peace, and any variation on that theme is unacceptable. For others, (notably Brown and the Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information[IPCRI]), taking into account the difficulties of every day life, the fact that the curriculum is as peaceful as it is is a remarkable achievement (especially considering the difference between the PNA authored textbooks and their predecessors from Jordan and Egypt). The latter opinion seems to be the more valid of the two. It is negligent and unrealistic not to take into account the situation in which the textbooks were written. Consideration of context is logical, if for no other reason than that it helps to explain the content of the textbooks. While the ongoing conflict might not excuse the flaws in the textbooks, it at least makes those flaws comprehensible. Thus the textbooks are the product of the conflict, not the cause—though they may now serve to exacerbate it.4 Moreover, as the exchange between Brown and CMIP has demonstrated, the debate surrounding the subject has arguably aggravated the conflict, as close analysis of the textbooks becomes obscured by the war of words waged between critics.
In order to properly understand the difference between the pre and post 1994 textbook editions, I will examine a few aspects of the textbooks—namely the depiction of maps, descriptions of holy sights, and references to jihad and peace.
Maps
Particularly irksome not only for CMIP, but also for most other critics of the textbooks, is that the name of Israel “does not appear on any map…The maps continue to disregard the existence [of Israel].”5 Brown notes, “If there is any issue that has attracted more international attention, it is the presence of maps in Palestinian textbooks that do not indicate the existence of Israel.”6
Both Nathan Brown and CMIP have astute opinions on this matter. While leaving Israel unmarked might not literally incite hatred among Palestinian school children, it certainly does not help. In the CMIP report, two sample maps are used,7 both fail to name Israel and ignore Tel Aviv.8 In contrast to Israel being overlooked, the State of Palestine (at least according to CMIP’s research) is depicted as stretching from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.9 CMIP is not the only critic to make this assertion. In agreement is Goetz Norbruch, who, in his report for the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) argued that, according to the textbooks, the Palestinian nation “includes all the territory west of the Jordan River. Haifa, Jaffa, Acre and Nazareth are all listed as Palestinian cities.”10
Although critics of CMIP (Brown et al) dispute many of their findings, they do not quarrel with this assertion over maps. Brown asserts that the ambiguity in the visual image (the maps) reflects the ambiguity of the PNA over the subject. He notes that the 1994 education series ignores the issue altogether, so these new textbooks are indeed a progression. Instead of leaving maps out altogether, the post-2000 books show ‘many maps,’ all of which “present the ambiguity of the borders of Palestine without addressing the subject directly in the text.”11 In order to avoid drawing sensitive political boundaries, maps of Mandatory Palestine, including the State of Israel, are often historical or topographical. Interestingly, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt are also not mentioned. If the text provided some explanation, that might help correct the ambiguity, but there is no explanation and no labeling.12 Moughrabi explains this absence: The Palestinian Ministry of Education (MOE) “does not provide a map of Israel because the latter has yet to define its borders, and they do not provide a map of Palestine because its border remains to be negotiated.”13 Brown agrees, noting that the lack of labeling reflects areas of ‘unresolved controversies among Palestinians.’ Furthermore, as Brown argues, sensitive ‘unresolved controversies’ such as these are consistently marginalized by the PNA as an attempt to avoid them. Brown’s assertions are helpful in recognizing one key fact: the awkward and ambiguous Palestinian approach to the treatment of ‘sensitive,’ ‘unresolved controversies’ often offends—whether or not that was the intended effect.14
Holy sites
Holy sites in Palestine are largely presented as either Muslim or Christian and never singularly Jewish. The only instances of a Jewish connection to Holy sites is when they are paired with Islam—for example, “Al-Buraq—the Wailing Wall, the Sanctuary of Abraham/Al Haram al-Ibrahimi as-Shareef, Jacob’s Well and Joseph’s Tomb.”15 This approach adds to the ambiguous and selective use of cultural education. Educating Palestinians about why Jews claim Holy sites in Israel could, at the very least, help to explain why Israelis fight aggressively to protect those lands (aside from the fact that educating about other cultures might prove enriching). Seemingly, the only effort towards this end is in a unit called “I and the Others” (note the dehumanizing, general reference to “Others”) which aims to help students build ‘skills’ and ‘knowledge’ related to tolerance of the three monotheistic religions. This unit directs students to various holy places of all three religions. However, “no direct mention is made to the traditions although the reference is clear.”16 Once again, the policy of the textbooks is not to explicitly refute the Jewish nature of holy places, but instead to “ignore their existence” and their importance to Jews.17
Peaceful education? Jihad, tolerance and peace in Palestinian textbooks
As Nathan Brown noted, “any treatment of Palestinian education must confront…the oft-repeated claims that Palestinian textbooks instill hatred of Israel and Jews.”18 The PNA-authored textbooks released in 2000 were, generally speaking, an improvement on the books they replaced. There are no longer overt calls for Israel’s destruction, nor are there “overtly anti-Semitic references” to Jews and Israelis. Brown argues that the PNA actually behaves evasively (or as he terms it, “awkwardly” and “ambiguously”) towards controversial contemporary topics, particularly those which prove internally divisive for the PNA, such as national identity. Instead of the PNA inciting hatred, Brown asserts, the PNA actually is relatively ‘silent’ on these issues. However, Brown rather undermines his own argument by noting that “the second generation of books…breaks some of that silence”—an ambiguous statement which could be interpreted as an admission of the presence of some hateful (or nationalistic) material. His fundamental point is that this “silence” is “broken,” though not to the degree alleged by critics of the textbooks.19 In saying this, Brown implicitly agrees that there is a problem, though he argues it is only a small one. However, it could be argued, as CMIP does, that these calls, though no longer overt are instead covert; that the “de-legitimization of Israel’s existence” coupled with “teachings such as the obligation to defend Islamic land” amounts to an implicit incitement of hatred.20 If so, the text stretches away from any peaceful intent. Interestingly, the textbooks actually contain many references to ‘peace.’ Indeed, “one finds references in almost all disciplines to the concepts of loving peace, openness to and respect for other cultures, and promotion of peace, global and environmental awareness.”21 Despite these references, there is a problem in that the textbooks fail to provide any practical outcome from this discussion: the desired genuine “regional and global multicultural perspective that promotes mutual understanding, respect and tolerance is missing.”22 Critics would add that the references to peace and tolerance are never explicitly extended to Jews and Israelis. This appears to be a deliberate move. Thus, there is a dichotomy—peace as a ‘universal and religious value’ is espoused; simultaneously ‘political peace in modern times’ is ignored. International documents and treaties are mentioned (International Declaration of Human Rights, UN Resolutions, Declaration of Independence), but no material contained within the textbooks talks explicitly about peace between Palestinians and Israelis. A position paper released by the Palestinian Ministry of Education (MOE) in 2002 stated that “peace is a political issue not a historical one, and consequently, it is dealt with as such”23—or more precisely, not dealt with as such.24 Not extending peaceful principles to Jews, and not dealing with sensitive issues was considered controversial. Even more controversial was a perceived increase in the militancy of the textbooks, with critics concerned about the prevalence of jihad as an attractive idea.
With reference to jihad and militancy, we once again see the dual nature of the textbooks. Overall, even CMIP notes that compared to previous textbooks, the latest textbooks contain only a few brief references to jihad.25 In some places the books “reject violence and call for non-violent resolution of societal conflicts.”26 In other places, jihad is called for. However, the meaning of jihad should not be oversimplified. Jihad can, according to the Islamic tradition, imply more than a Holy War: “it signifies a physical, moral, spiritual, and intellectual effort.” Jihad is not a pillar of Islam, nor the central theme of the religion, despite the common view. At the same time, jihad “was and remains a duty for Muslims” to engage in the moral, spiritual, and political fight to “create a just and decent society, where the poor and vulnerable are not exploited.”27 Palestinian textbooks include jihad and martyrdom as being both a religious and national duty.28 But jihad is referred to in different contexts: peaceful and militant. Even CMIP’s 2004 report agrees that the textbooks state that “military jihad is but one form of this religious commandment” (though the report then notes that military form is emphasized most).29
Peaceful jihad is shown in the contexts of the search for wisdom and education, serving one’s parents and family, and passive and peaceful resistance as in the cases of Gandhi and Nelson Mandela.30 The militant versions of jihad are stated most in reference to history, though on some occasions there are modern applications. For example, there exists the glorifying of militant positions, as in the case of jihad “against the Crusaders”31and the “War of Ramadan (October 1973).”32
The 2001 Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) study of Palestinian textbooks views the matter in a different light, refuting any notion of a peaceful jihad. The report begins by noting that the Palestinian textbooks post-Oslo generally “lessen the virulence of anti-Israel venom, as direct incitement significantly declined.”33 However, by the time of MEMRI’s 2003 report, they argue that one of the newly printed textbooks entitled “Islamic Culture” (grade 11) “shows a return to incitement for Jihad and martyrdom.”34 The textbooks cite examples: “the State’s task is to…prepare the nation of Jihad and to defend the country from its enemies.” Elsewhere, in a subsection entitled “Jihad and the Propagation of Islam,” one textbook notes that “Islam is Allah’s religion for all human beings…However, such methods may encounter resistance…then Jihad and the use of physical force against the enemies becomes inevitable.”35 Jihad is written as becoming a personal duty in three cases:
(a) “When Muslims are attacked. When the enemy is present in a Muslim country, it is the duty of the [Muslim] citizens of that country to fight the enemy and chase them away.”
(b) “In the case of all general call to arms. When a Muslim ruler declares it…it is the duty of Muslims to answer the call.”
(c) “Whoever attends a battle, it is his duty to fight the enemy and to partake in the battle and not to be delinquent.”
These duties to defend the country from attackers, analogous to the situation today, seem to undermine any minute semblance of peaceful intent within the textbooks. MEMRI further develops CMIP’s breakdown of jihad by using four groups: “the physical Jihad” (associated with fighting and battling), “the material Jihad” (to do with monetary assistance), “the Jihad of ideas” (“accomplished by mouth and pen”), and “Jihad accomplished through…contact” (through participation acts such as transporting soldiers).36
Martyrdom receives a similar treatment. Firstly, “the relevant references are noticeably fewer.”37 Martyrdom generally relates to historical events (those before or during the 1947-48 War). IPCRI argues that “limited references are made to recent martyrs of the Palestinian Resistance/PLO.” Martyrs are repeatedly referred to in various exercises (specifically in relation to rewards they will secure), but these references are ambiguous and vague.
The examples provided by CMIP in the 2004 report at no point refer specifically to the current conflict, though one could argue that the parallels are clear.
Thus, from the examples shown, while jihad and martyrdom are discussed in all their forms, the references are mainly biblical—though there are some worrying inclusions of jihad in recent textbooks that have contemporary applications. The coverage of jihad exemplifies the “awkwardness” and dual treatment that many topics in the textbooks receive, as Anabel Rett notes: “War is glorified to some extent by stressing military matters. On the other hand Islam is described as being peaceful.”38 The references to the militaristic form of jihad need not necessarily be seen as problematic. Brown notes that if jihad is described as a war in defense of “the homeland—as it essentially is in the [textbooks]—it is unexceptional.” Brown comments, “I was taught a similar value in American schools and my kids were taught that in a much more heavy-handed way in an Israeli school. The issue is less whether such a value is taught and more how it is applied. I find the books extremely vague on this score.”39 Brown’s point is valid. There is no practical element to the comments about jihad, and they rarely, if ever, point to specific incidents. Moreover, it is still true to say that (1) the textbooks do not “openly incite against Israel and the Jews”—that they do not “openly incite hatred and violence,” and (2) that “there are no open calls for the destruction of Israel similar to those that permeated the pre-1967 narratives.”40
Many of the criticisms leveled at the textbooks fail to consider the conditions under which the curriculum was written and operate in the Palestinian National Authority Territories.41 Textbooks should be viewed “in light of both the internal domestic struggle” of the Palestinian society and the “regional and international conflict that the Palestinians are part of.” The PNA, it should be remembered, is publishing these textbooks during a period “characterized by a violent conflict.”42 There may be an “unrealistic burden” on the curriculum and its teachers: the reality of Palestinian life is often grim. Schools do not have a monopoly over “communicating ways to interpret such realities, especially in matters that are so deeply felt and encountered on a daily basis.”43 Only when viewed from this wider perspective can the outsider begin to comprehend the idiosyncrasies of the textbooks.
Brown’s central hypothesis—that “the Palestinian curriculum is [neither] a war curriculum [nor] a ‘peace curriculum’”44—is not only plausible, but accurate. Of the two (peace or war), the textbooks are closer to peace. Claims that the textbooks are loaded with incitement are ‘misleading’ and ‘tendentious,’ and often refer to the older, Jordanian and Egyptian texbooks that have mostly been replaced.45 True, the textbooks lean at times towards ambiguous remarks that point to violence, and the history textbooks sometimes ignore some historical events, “whilst depicting others from one perspective.”46 However, categorizing these remarks as incitement is an exaggeration—there is no practical element and modern-day parallels are rarely drawn, if ever. One must also remember the repeated references to tolerance and the emphasis on peace. It is true that these principles are never explicitly applied to Jews and Israelis, a regrettable fact, but those references are there—certainly an improvement on previous textbooks. CMIP infers that the exclusion of Jews in discussions of tolerance is malicious, while Brown argues it is a reflection of a lack of consensus within the PNA and a desire to ‘avoid’ difficult issues. Brown is supported by IPCRI who also uses the term ‘avoid.’ Explaining the sometimes inaccurate treatment of history, IPCRI notes that this phenomenon could be explained by the PNA’s “attempt to avoid domestic and regional controversy over unresolved issues. It should not be construed as an attempt to present an inaccurate or dishonest reading of history.”47 Deciding whether the textbooks in their current form are acceptable, or, at least, understandable, hinges on one’s conception of the context. It is negligent and unrealistic not to account for the context in which the textbooks were written. In doing so, it becomes difficult to argue or to expect that the books would espouse entirely peaceful ideas. This is true especially when one compares Palestinian textbooks to their Israeli counterparts, which often display some similar characteristics. As Elie Podeh asserts, Palestinian textbooks are very similar to the early Israeli textbooks. Like the early Israeli textbooks, the Palestinians are “forming their own collective memory and creating their own historical narrative in what may be regarded as their first-generation textbooks.” Yet, if Palestinian textbooks must go through the “long, debilitating and perhaps inevitable process undergone by Israeli textbooks, the prospects for a genuine and lasting Israeli-Palestinian conciliation may lie far off in the future.”48
It will probably take “years, and even decades” before a decisive attitudinal change can take place in the minds of Palestinians and Israelis.49 For that reason it is essential that education move immediately toward a peaceful orientation that explicitly relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict and that deals with the reality, rather than skirting the tough issues. Though this goal is important, as it frames this debate within the larger context of the Arab-Israeli conflict, it is questionable whether a peaceful curriculum can really be expected considering the context in which the school system operates. Friends, family, and life experience will dominate unless the Palestinian education system lives up to its own goal of creating critical, independent thinkers.
Simon Kirk is a senior Political Science major with a concentration in American Politics. This article is an extract from a paper for which Simon won the 2004-2005 Solomon Asch Center Undergraduate Prize for Scholarship in National, Ethnic, and Communal Conflict. Since he transferred to Penn from the University of Sussex, UK, in his junior year, Simon has become an active member of the university, serving as a member of the Fox Leadership Steering Committee and as the University of Pennsylvania Hillel Intercommunity Chair.
Notes
1. Nathan Brown, “Democracy, History, and the Contest Over the Palestinian Curriculum,” November 2001, http://www.geocities.com/nathanbrown1/Adam_Institute_Palestinian_textbooks.htm (accessed December 22, 2004)
2. Ibid.
3. Nathan Brown, email message to author, December 21, 2004.
4. Brown.
5. Ibid.
6. Brown.
7. Dr. Arnon Groiss, “Jews, Israel and Peace in Palestinian School Textbooks 2000-2001 and 2001-2002. A Survey of the Textbooks Published by the Palestinian National Authority,” EcomTrade http://www.ecomtrade.co.il/eMall/shops/1559/imgbank/PA%20Nov%202001%20PDF.pdf 12.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.
10. Goetz Norbruch, “Narrating Palestinian Nationalism: A Study of the New Palestinian Textbooks,” Jewish Virtual Library, www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/Norbruch.html (accessed December 23, 2004)
11. Brown.
12. Ibid.
13. Fouad Moughrabi, “The Politics of Palestinian Textbooks,” Journal of Palestine Studies, 31.121 (Autumn 2001).
14. Brown.
15. Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information (IPCRI), Report I: “Analysis and Evaluation of the New Palestinian Curriculum, Reviewing Palestinian Textbooks and Tolerance Education Program,” submitted to the Public Affairs Office, US Consulate General Jerusalem, March 2003, 33.
16. Ibid., 34.
17. Ibid., 7.
18. Brown.
19. Ibid., 2.
20. CMIP, quoted in Brown.
21. IPCRI, 28.
22. Ibid., 4-5.
23. Ibid., 28.
24. Brown.
25. Dr. Amon Groiss, “Jews, Israel and Peace in the Palestinian Authority Textbooks: The New Textbooks for Grades 4 and 9,” EcomTrade, May 2004: 82 http://www.ecomtrade.co.il/eMall/shops/1559/imgbank/PA%20Report%20-%20August%202004.pdf
26. Ibid., 29.
27. Ibid., 34.
28. Ibid.
29. Groiss “Jews, Israel and Peace in the Palestinian Authority Textbooks: The New Textbooks for Grades 4 and 9” 82.
30. Ibid., 34.
31. Ibid.
32. Ibid.
33. The Middle East Media Research Institute, “2003 Palestinian Authority Textbook Calls for Jihad and Martyrdom,” 14 November 2003, 26 December 2004 <www.memri.org/bin/opener/cgi?Page=archives&ID=SR2203>.
34. Ibid.
35. Ibid.
36. Ibid.
37. Groiss “Jews, Israel and Peace in the Palestinian Authority Textbooks: The New Textbooks for Grades 4 and 9” 83.
38. Anabel Rett, “The Arab-Islamic Civilization”, grade 8, Ramallah, in “The New Palestinian Textbooks for Grades 6 to 8,” 25 December 2004 <http://www.gei.de/english/projekta/pdf/palest03.pdf>
39. Brown, email message to author.
40. IPCRI, 3.
41. Ruth Firer and Sami Adwan, The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict in History and Civics Textbooks of Both Nations (Hannover: Verlag Hahnsche Buchhandlung, 2004), 7.
42. IPCRI, 15.
43. Brown.
44. Ibid.
45. Ibid.
46. IPCRI, 38.
47. Ibid.
48. Elie Podeh, The Arab-Israeli Conflict in Israeli History Textbooks, 1948-2000 (Westport, Connecticut: Bergin & Garvey, 2002), 151.
49. Brown.