History curricula and textbooks in Israel and Palestine — part 2: Portrayal of self, other, and what happened in the 1948 war
This is the second of a series of articles examining how history education has changed over time in Israel and Palestine, as part of the World School History project.
The first article in the series provided a contextual timeline with significant milestones and periods in history curricula development alongside significant historical events. This article focuses on how curricula and textbooks both reflect and reinforce divisions within and between Israelis and Palestinians.
Evaluation of the extent to which Israeli and Palestinian curricula and textbooks promote conflict has long been a topic of interest. However, the vast majority of studies and assessments have been contentious and challenged for being biased (see this Wikipedia page to get a feel for the efforts and rebuttals that have been made).
Rather than dig into these contentions and controversies themselves, this article instead surfaces the ways in which differences in the ways events and peoples are portrayed (or in some cases, omitted) can promote division. We choose a particular example, the 1948 war between Jews and Palestinians, and use it to consider:
- Value-loaded language used to describe events/entities.
- Omission, Accentuation or minimisation of different events/entities or aspects of events/entities.
The war between Jews and Palestinians in 1948 resulted in the then British-governed Mandate for Palestine becoming divided into the State of Israel, Transjordan, and Egypt. A consequence of this was that over 700 000 Palestinian Arabs (around half the Palestinian Arab population) in the region became refugees.
Within both Israeli and Palestinian education systems, it has long been appreciated how important portrayal of this period is for shaping national identity and how one views the status of the other communities and nations in the region. For this reason, shifts in the regulation of curricula and content (as well as the content itself) have tended to coincide with external political events (see also part 1 of this series).
Education systems through time
Something to mention at the outset is that there is significant diversity within both Israeli and Palestinian education systems, and both systems have also undergone several reforms through time.
Education systems
While the Palestinian system follows a unified curriculum, schools still vary in their instruction in line with these guidelines. Furthermore, there are different kinds of schools:
- State schools (attended by ~70% pupils);
- United Nations Relief and Work Agency schools (attended by ~23% pupils);
- Private schools (attended by ~11% pupils);
- Religious schools with an Islamic religious curriculum (attended by ~0.1% pupils).
The Israeli education system is more formally divided into five distinct streams, each with its own curricula and textbooks:
- State (mamlachti) schools (attended by the majority of pupils). The curriculum is 75% state-determined and includes mathematics, language skills, science, history, Jewish studies, art and physical education. Supplementary subjects make up the remaining 25% and these might reflect a particular philosophy or tradition.
- State religious (mamlachti dati) schools (attended by ~18% Jewish pupils), which emphasise Jewish studies and religious observance;
- Independent religious schools (chinuch atzmai) established by and for ultra-Orthodox (Haredi) Jews (attended by ~24% Jewish pupils), which focus on the study of Talmud Torah (curricula and textbooks are developed independently and not subject to state monitoring);
- Arab schools, with Arabic language instruction and a focus on Arab history, religions and culture (curricula and textbooks are monitored by a special department in the Ministry of Education);
- Private schools for specific groups, e.g. based on foreign curricula (curricula and textbooks are developed independently and not subject to state monitoring).
State curricula and textbooks over time
State curriculum in Israel (this does not include independent/private, Arab or ultra-Orthodox curricula; see below):
- Late-1940s to 1970s: Curriculum centred around nationalist Zionist ideals.
- 1970s to 1990s: Attempts to include Arab perspective in the teaching of historical events and present more balanced accounts of events.
- 1990s to late-2010s: Revised curriculum places increased emphasis on Jewish identity. In the 2010s there are also bans on “deviant” textbooks (both Jewish and Arabic).
In the West Bank and Gaza (this does not include curricula from religious or private schools; see below):
- Up till mid-1990s: West Bank follows Jordanian curriculum and textbooks, Gaza follows Egyptian curriculum and textbooks. These are still regulated by Israel.
- Mid-1990s to mid-2010s: First unified Palestinian curriculum and textbooks created in line with international guidelines and adopted in Gaza and West Bank.
- From mid-2010s: Revised curriculum places greater emphasis on Palestinian national identity.
In this article we will be focusing mainly on Israeli state, Israeli Arab and Palestinian state curricula from mid-1990s (when the first Palestinian curriculum started to be adopted) to the mid-2010s. (We realise the periods identified above are extremely broad brush and that there were many revisions within and between these periods.)
Components of the 1948 war and its aftermath
When considering the war and its aftermath, we might identify several components:
- Declaration of the state of Israel.
- Hostile propaganda between Arabs and Jews which promoted mutual mistrust and fear.
- Hostility and violence between Arabs and Jews.
- Arab Palestinians leaving Israel.
Each of these can be accentuated, minimised or omitted in the creation of a narrative, and the language used to describe them can be heavily loaded so as to create highly valenced representations.
Declaration of the state of Israel
Israeli state textbooks refer to the 1948 as the “War of Independence” and in the majority of cases, emphasis is placed on the fulfilment of Zionist goals. However, some books published in the late-1990s and 2000s also acknowledge the catastrophic consequences, nakba, for Arabs. For example, in an eleventh grade history textbook in Israel (Naveh et al., 2009), there is an attempt to present a more balanced view which even acknowledges discrepancies in beliefs and perspectives:
“According to estimates, about 700 thousand Arab Palestinian inhabitants left, fled, were expelled, and became refugees in Arab countries (Palestinian estimates are higher).
From Israel’s perspective, this phenomenon made it easier to establish Jewish rule and helped solve many problems (such as security, land shortage and housing). It also established the Jewish character of the State of Israel.
At the same time, masses of Palestinians lost their home, their land, and the Palestinian state they could have received based on the UN resolution. 150,000 Palestinians remained within the borders of the State of Israel at the war’s end.
In many places the IDF expelled the Palestinians. Even if this was not a declared policy and some tried to challenge it, it was carried out in the field.”
In Palestinian textbooks, the state of Israel is viewed as a settler colonial state and referred to as “Zionist occupation”. For example, in a Palestinian history textbook for the eleventh grade:
“… one of the most dangerous forms of colonialism; it takes possession of land from its people, not satisfied with the exploitation of the people, therefore uprooting them from their lands and homes, either by executing them or displacing them. It turns the country it colonizes into (a land without people). It marks its land by uprooting everything that belongs to that land, humans, and civilizations, intending to create an independent and racist state for the settlers.”
Hostile propaganda, mistrust and fear
Both Israeli state textbooks and Palestinian textbooks emphasise hostile propaganda by the “other” while omitting or minimising the role that propaganda might play in their own views.
For example, from an Israeli upper grade high school textbook (Barnavi, 1998):
As the years passed, hatred, alienation, the desire for revenge and the hope of return, all exacerbated by Arab propaganda, fused the refugees into a single nation and transformed the refugee problem into an international problem.
Similarly, in a Palestinian textbook:
The Zionist occupation targets our Palestinian history and presence; therefore, it twists, forges, and distorts the facts and the historical facts and weaves a false history that corresponds with its goals and objectives. For this reason, we should acknowledge our history and stand for the truth of the events on our land to distinguish right from wrong and draw on the lessons that will facilitate us in building our future and establishing our independent state with Jerusalem as its capital.
Hostility and violence
As in the case of propaganda, descriptions of the hostility and violence of the “other” prevail both Israeli state textbooks and Palestinian textbooks, while hostility and violence of the self tends to be minimised or omitted.
In Israeli textbooks, descriptions of early Arab-Jewish relations during the pre-state period and after the establishment of the State of Israel tend to be dominated by violence, with the Arabs are portrayed as aggressors, and words such as “bloodthirsty”, “mob”, “murderers”, “rioters”, “terrorists” being used. For example, from an Israeli textbook:
Most of the terrorist acts were focused on taking lives, attacking Jewish neighbourhoods and settlements. Their wrath was also turned on the British administration, and attacks took place on railroads, as well as army and police camps.
Similarly, in a Palestinian textbook for the eleventh grade:
The Arabs of Palestine did not leave their homes and abandon their property voluntarily, or by choice, but as a result of acts of violence and terrorism. Meanwhile, Ben Gurion declared that (Israel) should do everything possible to ensure the expelled Palestinians do not return to their homes.
However, from the late 1990s to the early 2010s, more multi-perpspective accounts can be found in some Israeli textbooks. For example, in an Israeli history textbook for the ninth grade (Naveh and Vered, 2012), the hostility between Israelis and Palestinians is contextualised, and violence from the Israeli side is also acknowledged:
From the beginning, the realization of Zionism met with resistance from the Palestinians, the Arabs of Eretz Yisra’el. After being separated from Syria following the partition of the mandates between France and Britain, their unique national identity began to develop in Eretz Yisra’el (Filastin [Palestine]). Using political and violent means, they demanded that the British Mandate’s commitment to the Balfour Declaration be revoked. The more successful Zionism become, the more Palestinian nationalism, which resisted it, grew strong.
Attempts at dialogue made by Chaim Weizmann, David Ben-Gurion and academicians in search of a formula for coexistence based on a Jewish state failed, and violence became the defining aspect of Jewish and Arab relations in the country.
Departure of Arab Palestinians
A stark example of how language is used to shape the narrative is how the departure of Arabs from their homes is described.
In Israeli state textbooks, the words used tend to suggest departure was voluntary, even if with negative connotations. Words such as “abandoned”, “deserted”, “vacated” are used. However, some books do make more explicit the fact that there may have been coercion involved with terms such as “uprooted” being used. For example, in an Israeli history textbook for the ninth grade (Naveh, 1999):
600,000 Arab inhabitants were uprooted from their homes and villages and fled the country.
In Palestinian and Israeli Arab textbooks, the language used tends to suggest the departure was coerced, with words such as “evacuated”, “evicted”, “expelled” being used, or even stronger language such as “forced displacement”, “extermination”. For example, in Palestinian textbook for the eleventh grade:
The settlers focused on occupying the land from the indigenous people, colonizing it, evacuating the people from the land, and establishing in the country a state whose bases combined all three main elements: land, humans, including settlers and the extermination of indigenous people. […] such as the forced displacement of Palestinians in 1948
Such discrepancies in language result in the same facts and events being viewed very differently. Words such as “abandoned”, “deserted”, “vacated” ascribe agency only to the people leaving — they are the ones responsible for their departure, while words such as “evacuated”, “evicted”, “expelled” imply another agent — the ones doing the evacuating, evicting and expelling — who plays an active role in the departure. In the case of stronger language such as “extermination”, the agent is ascribed malicious intent.
Reflections
Even without considering contested facts (e.g. the number of Palestinians displaced), descriptions, emphases and omissions already suffice to promote and sustain divisive perspectives. Yet recognising this can also be a powerful way to de-polarise perspectives. Some of those responsible for creating history curricula and textbooks have sought to do this, and have created materials that present both “self” and “other” perspectives side by side.
Worryingly though, both Israeli and Palestinian authorities have recently started putting in place measures to mute these efforts by preventing inclusion of the “other”’s perspective. For example, textbooks that contain an “anti-Zionist” viewpoint or an account of the 1948 war as part of the “nakba”, have been censored in Israel, and the latest Palestinian textbook reform delegitimises the state of Israel by characterising it as colonial occupation.
It is all too easy to vilify these apparent attempts to re-polarise, but perhaps it is worth taking a step back to ask ourselves why this might be the case. In both the case of Palestine and Israel, history textbooks do not only give an account of the past, they also have to make sense of the present, and to help build a national identity that affords sufficient dignity for its citizens. Yet peace may be the price that has to be paid.
The World School History Project studies the content and underlying principles driving history education in different populations over time using a range of methods (qualitative, quantitative, big data, thick data) to better understand different narratives and perspectives. Readers are warmly invited to comment on this article, point out mistakes and omissions (I’m sure there are many), and engage in a respectful conversation with other readers. For those who would like to give deeper feedback or have a more extensive dialogue, please use the World School History Project participation form.
References
Barnavi, E. 1998. The Twentieth Century: A History of the Israeli Nation in Recent Times: History for the Upper Grade.
Bier, J. The MIT Reader. Removing Borders, Removing Palestinians: Israeli Population Maps after 1967.
Bitan, D. 1991. Internationale Schulbuchforschung. The Image of the Arab in Israeli textbooks.
Naveh, 1999. The Twentieth Century: History for the Ninth Grade.
Naveh, E., Vered, N., Shahar, D., Reches. 2009. History, Grades 11–12, Knowing History — Nationalism in Israel and Nations —Building a State in the Middle East.
Teff-Seker. 2020. Peace and conflict in Israeli state-approved textbooks: 2000–2019.
