As a veteran teacher of history and civics, I have had many years
of experience in teaching the Israeli-Arab conflict in high school.
Formally, this subject is part of the high-school curriculum in
Israeli schools. The obligatory one-year course in modern Jewish
history includes some aspect of Jewish-Arab relations during the
years of the British Mandate and the Israel-Arab wars of 1947-49,
1956, 1967 and 1973. For some ten years, the civics curriculum even
included an elective but lengthy course called "The Israeli-Arab
Conflict," which used Zionist, Palestinian and Arab sources.
In the Jewish Jerusalem school where I teach, there can be between
30 and 40 pupils in a class. In our educational structure, a class
is not only a framework for learning but also a social
micro-community. As a group, the students are quite heterogeneous
in their background - the homes they come from, the socioeconomic
position of their families, the political climate in which they
grew up, their learning ability, and their intellectual horizons.
Since this is neither an elitist school nor one in a distressed
area, there is something of "the average Israeli" in the student
body. The conflict is studied in the eleventh or twelfth grade,
just before the students complete their high-school studies and,
for the most part, prepare for their army service.
Class and Teacher
My basic ideological premise in teaching is based on the classical
Zionist concept that the Jewish people has always been connected by
strong historical and religious ties to the Land of Israel, and
this affords them the right to return to their ancient homeland and
live there as a sovereign entity. No less important is my
conviction that the Palestinians, too, have national rights in
their homeland, including the right to self-determination and the
establishment of their state alongside the State of Israel. Among
other factors that, no doubt, influence my teaching are my
orientations towards peace and my emphasis on the importance of the
individual human factor in history.
It is my impression that in the Israeli educational system (at
least in non-religious schools), ideological pressure on the
teacher in actual classroom teaching is minimal. In all my teaching
years, I, myself, have never been aware of any such pressure.
However, I am not immune to the political climate in Israel.
Various terms like "Eretz Yisrael," "Greater Israel," "terrorist,"
have great significance in the vocabulary of the conflict. Even
though I personally reject this terminology, for an extended period
I used the biblical "Judea and Samaria" rather than "the West
Bank."
I made this compromise because I was wary of being labeled "a
far-out leftist" by my students since I sense that such political
tags are apt to block chances of the students' accepting any
message from the teacher. On the other hand, I started using terms
like "occupation" and "occupied territories" long before this usage
became more widely accepted among the Israeli public. My aim was to
make the students think by shocking them out of those generally
accepted attitudes which they took for granted, and to force them
to ponder the significance of what is widely considered as
"conventional wisdom" in Israel.
For example, most Israelis do not see themselves as "occupiers," so
that the impact of hearing a teacher using such apparently negative
terminology opened the way for an examination of the real situation
of the Palestinians under military rule/occupation. I am aware of
the contradictions here (the use of "Judea and Samaria, for
example"), but teaching is in reality a tangled web of
contradictions, soul-searching, and compromises. One of the
difficulties in teaching the conflict is that simple - often
over-simplified - messages are more easily absorbed than complex
explanations, even though the latter are more likely to approach
the truth. It is easier to generalize about "Arab aggression" than
to enter into the real complexities of Arab-Jewish relations over a
century of conflict.
Two important characteristics of my classes must be taken into
account. First, discussion is an integral part of instruction in
both history and civics. Some lessons on the conflict naturally
engender lively and even raucous discussion. However, this is
conducted within the limits of what is called "the national
consensus" in Israel. Voicing an opinion, even raising topics,
outside these bounds are considered taboo and anyone expressing
them is viewed as a freak. For instance, it would be taboo to
express the view that Israel's "war of independence" in 1947-49 was
a "Jewish war of expansion." Likewise, a student advocating the
wholesale killing or expulsion of the Palestinian population as a
way of ending the conflict would be met by a shudder of revulsion
and shouted down.
Second, despite the danger of such generalizations, my extended
experience leads me to the conclusion that a lower socioeconomic
level tends to encourage more extreme views about the conflict and
the advocacy of more violent solutions. As the base of the
academic-bound student population in high schools has broadened
consistently, and it now accounts for about 50 percent of those
finishing school, one notes with satisfaction that there are more
students from homes with lower economic levels. (The reference here
is only to the economic aspect and has no connection to ethnic
origin.) While this does not serve to make the teaching of the
conflict any easier, it is only one facet of an important and
inevitable phenomenon with which every educationalist is familiar:
that most students bring into the classroom ready-made opinions
culled from their home environment.
Difficulties in Teaching the Conflict
Ignorance: In the average Israeli classroom there is a striking
degree of ignorance about the basic facts in the conflict, such as
Israel's territorial gains in the 1948 war, the international
context of Israeli-Arab wars, or the origins of the Palestinian
refugee problem. In particular, there is much ignorance about "the
enemy." Data on the population, economy and culture of Arab
countries is extremely sketchy, even in the most recent
textbooks.
For example, my students do not, as a rule, know why their city,
Jerusalem, is holy to Muslims, which goes to show how unfamiliar
they are with fundamental aspects of the past history and the
present situation in the region. Moreover, before the Oslo
agreement, students could only say "terrorists" when asked what
they know about the PLO. This means that, although the PLO was
constantly in the news they were watching, hearing and reading,
these young Israelis knew nothing about the organization itself,
its background and goals. (In its basic approach, the media still
appears unable or unwilling to change this sad situation.) This
kind of ignorance, naturally, leaves the student defenseless
against negative stereotypes. Without being acquainted with the
basic facts, real understanding is impossible. One cannot identify
with the fate of another individual, and even less with a
collective, if one knows nothing about their past, their problems
and their aspirations. Not knowing means in effect not
sympathizing.
False knowledge: From the "climate" of opinion outside the
classroom - the mass media, including television, radio and the
press; family; friends; politicians; the Internet - the pupil
absorbs innumerable false or unfounded "facts" based on prejudice
or ill will. The climate is, of course, also influenced by real
current events such as wars, acts of terror or peace negotiations.
Among the more prominent of such unfounded "facts" one can mention
the following examples:
• All the Jews during the British Mandate period merely
wished to live peacefully with their Arab-Palestinian
neighbors;
• It was at the request of the invading Arab armies that the
Palestinian population left its lands and its country in
1948;
• The bulk of the Palestinian population in "the territories"
has nothing against Israeli rule but is "incited" to oppose
it;
• The Israelis always offered the Arabs peace, but our
outstretched hand was constantly rejected.
I am sure that a Palestinian teacher can provide a similar list of
items of "false knowledge" among the students in his/her
classroom.
Misunderstanding: If one looks at the conflict from the point of
view of motivation, then ignorance and prejudice are certainly
among the main factors behind the deep misunderstandings which
characterize the relations between the adversaries. Consider, for
example, the Arab claim that the Palestinians were the helpless
victims of Zionist colonialism or the oft-heard Israeli mantra that
the Arabs were, and still are, plotting to drive the Jews into the
sea. Or one can take the frequent portrayal of the Arabs in the
Israeli media, and even in some textbooks, as faceless aggressors
rather than as human beings. One could provide no end of similar
examples of hostility, buttressed by ignorance on both sides.
Such ignorance leads, as we have noted, to indifference and even
revulsion towards another people with which one is not acquainted
and with whom one has no real contact. From false knowledge
develops a string of negative stereotypes whose common denominator
is the tendency to demonize the Other, and to blacken his/her
motives. Needless to say, stereotypes and demonization constitute a
serious obstacle to that realistic analysis of the conflict, which
should ideally be the starting point of the teacher in approaching
this sensitive subject.
The Lack of a Human Dimension: The rational treatment of subject
matter in history or civics, which is after all the professional
inclination of any conscientious teacher, cannot overlook the
emotional aspect of the conflict. An overly abstract approach may
negate strivings by a student for accommodation with the Other, an
accommodation that is dependent not only on rational factors but
also on human contact and insight. But in our reality, it is still
the tendency to which we have referred, to demonize the enemy in
such a long conflict, which inevitably colors the teaching of that
conflict in the classroom. Not only in the contemporary media, but
also frequently in some older Hebrew textbooks,1 the student is
exposed to terms like "bloodthirsty gangs," "bandits," "thugs,"
"primitive people incited to perpetrate pogroms against the Jews,"
etc. The constant, insidious demonization, which has become an
integral part of presenting the conflict, proves to be a powerful
agent in the dehumanization of the enemy.
The consequence of this distortion of the image of the Other is the
perception in the mind of the student that negotiation and
accommodation with such "creatures" are out of the question. In my
experience the absence, due to this perpetual misrepresentation, of
seeing a genuine human dimension in the Other is the greatest
barrier to a realistic teaching of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Surmounting the Obstacles
Accepting the hypothesis that the desired object is to prepare the
minds of the students for the possibility of accommodation, or even
of real peace, between the adversaries in the conflict, obligates
facing up squarely to the difficulties involved in the educational
sphere. In one important aspect there has been tangible progress:
in the presentation of facts about the other party, and even about
the conflict in general. Regrettably, the chapter on "The
Israeli-Arab Conflict" in civics has been withdrawn from the
curriculum, but textbooks in history on the subject have been
getting more informative and less tendentious. This is especially
true of the new textbooks that appeared in the 1990s, for example,
in their presentation of subjects like colonialism and the Cold War
as the international context for the history of the Middle East.
The teacher can also take advantage of the constantly increasing
amount of authentic information available to the public,
particularly in view of more contacts (and friction) with the
Palestinians. Here, even tourism to Egypt and Jordan can
help.
On the other hand, the ultra-Orthodox (the "Haredi") school system
still persists in following a tradition according to which factual
knowledge about the culture of the secular world is doled out only
in meager portions. Where history is hardly taught, uninformed and
extremist views on the conflict dominate the landscape. This is
doubly significant because their proportion in the school
population - about 15-20 percent - is increasing rapidly,
especially in the younger age groups.
With all the importance of textbooks and educational policy, much
still depends on the teacher. From my experience I can recommend to
teachers that encouraging discussion has distinct advantages.
Topics like "terrorism," "secure borders," "the fate of the Jewish
settlements in the occupied territories," are naturally raised in
learning about the conflict and they provoke strong emotions in all
directions. Such "emotional" topics should, in my view, be
discussed openly, since the controversies and quarrels which erupt
in the classroom are in themselves part and parcel of the
educational message: that the conflict is between living human
beings rather than a win-or-lose electronic game. In addition, the
very fact that arguments and counter-arguments are aired in the
open encourages the students to reflect during and after the
discussion. Thus preconceived moulds of prejudice can be thought
through and broken down.
It was not I, but one of my students, who initiated the most
instructive experience of this kind in a classroom. At the height
of the first Intifada, the consensus in Israel, and in my school,
had swung to the right. A "leftist" student proposed conducting a
class discussion in which he would argue for formal discussions
between the State of Israel and the PLO, which was then outlawed as
a "terrorist organization." I objected, sensing that in the
prevailing atmosphere, he would be branded as an outcast in class.
He insisted and I finally gave way.
His technique was to divide the students at random according to the
seating arrangements. Each student would be asked to argue for or
against the negotiations as convincingly as possible, and to the
best of his/her ability, regardless of the arguer's real views. As
I recall, according to where I was sitting, I provided quite
convincing arguments against any recognition of the PLO. It turned
out that the results of the voting that followed the discussion
were quite unexpected. The great majority voted against the
national consensus and for negotiations, and, of course, against
the teacher. It seems that with each student facing the necessity
of thinking through his/her position analytically, the consensus
mould broke down and the students were free to reach their own
novel conclusions.
Furthermore, in teaching the conflict, the teacher can, and should,
consistently refer to the human dimension. This can be implemented,
to a bigger extent, by adding to the dry historical facts letters,
reminiscences, the words of popular songs, documents and other
contemporary material. This approach incorporates the testimonies
of eyewitnesses and actual participants in the events studied,
through personal presentation, photographs, films and writings. The
intention is to involve the students in the real scale of feelings
which arose, let us say, in 1948 among individuals, Jews and Arabs
alike, engaged in conflict and fighting: the fear of death before
battle, the pride of victory, the thirst for revenge by the
defeated, the anguish of uprooted refugees. On this sort of canvas,
the adversary is presented not only as "the enemy," but as a human
being with the same emotions as one finds in every individual. If
in teaching the annals of war, one can in this way assure the human
dimension, there is room for hope that the awakening of feelings of
empathy will, in turn, lead to a deeper understanding of the depth
of the conflict and, subsequently, to thoughts of
accommodation.
'Peace Education' or Learning about the Conflict
It could be claimed that the emphasis on teaching about the
conflict is self-defeating. Why stress bloodshed, hatred, prejudice
and suffering if the numerous peace-oriented people-to-people peace
education projects in and out of school set out to foster
understanding, togetherness, tolerance and a peaceful future? I
have nothing against different approaches to peace education, but
am convinced that "short-cuts" won't have lasting effects: there is
no alternative to "working through" the complex issues of emotion,
hypocrisy and sheer falsehood which today surround the conflict.
These are the foundations on which the perpetuation of the conflict
is founded. Overcoming them demands that the educationalist
encourages a broad and open discussion of the issues among the
students as a necessary psychological basis for fostering better
understanding. Then, indirectly lies the prospect that the message
of conciliation will come as the natural outcome of such
understanding.
This article is based, in part, on a paper submitted to the
Georg-Eckert Institut in Braunschweig, Germany
1. See Daniel Bar-Tal's article in this issue, p. 5.
