In 1999 and 2000, I conducted research on the establishment of the new Palestinian curriculum by collecting documents, textbooks, and interviewing Palestinian educators. Since that time, I have continued the research by continuing to survey textbooks and discussions of educational issues by Palestinian educators. This research was supported by a Fulbright grant through the United States-Israel Educational Foundation (USIEF) and another grant from the United States Institute of Peace (USIP). The conclusions of the research are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views either of USIEF or USIP.

I am aware of the international controversy surrounding Palestinian textbooks. Most accusations against the books are based on reports from the “Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace” (CMIP). Although that organization presents reports that are tendentious and misleading, few independent reviews have been conducted. Therefore CMIP reports–which seek to obscure rather than highlight the changes that have been made–are not frequently challenged. I hope that my own review of Palestinian textbooks can help correct the inaccurate impressions prevalent in international discussions of the issue.

The Palestinian Authority has published two sets of books. The first, the National Education series, was designed to supplement the interim use of Jordanian and Egyptian books. That series was written in 1994. It contained no racism or incitement. It also mentioned no region as Palestinian other than those occupied by Israel in 1967. It was largely silent on most sensitive political issues. The second series of books, a comprehensive curriculum, has been completed for grades one, two, six, and seven. Remaining grades will be added, two at a time, over the next few years. The newer books have broken some of the silence of the earlier books but still generally treat sensitive issues with circumspection. Based on a review of those books, I can state the following:

Racism

The new books are devoid of racism and anti-Semitism. Thus, the PA should be credited with removing such material from the curriculum rather than maintaining it. The CMIP relies for its claims on the Palestinian decision to continue use of older Egyptian and Jordanian material. The Egyptian and Jordanian books do contain problematic material, though they were adopted only as an interim measure. Palestinian educators are highly critical of the books in question and anxious to replace them (as they have now done for four grades). Oddly, Israel actually participated in continuing the books. Palestinian schools under Israeli control in East Jerusalem used the Jordanian books with the offensive material but they were not allowed to use the 1994 National Education books devoid of any offensive material (because they were written by the Palestinian Authority). Only in 2000 did some East Jerusalem schools begin to switch to the new Palestinian curriculum.

History

The Palestinian books strive to create a strong sense of Palestinian, Arab, and Muslim identity in students. This dominates their treatment of history. Thus, they concentrate on trying to demonstrate a continuing Arab presence in Palestine. Though they do not deny a Jewish presence, they do not dwell on it. In Islamic education, the books have to confront Muslim-Jewish relations (in the early days of Islam) and Muslim-Christian relations (during the Crusades). The books clearly take the point of view of the Muslims in both instances. But they also clearly support peaceful relations (for instance, by lauding Saladin for insisting that people of all faiths should have access to Jerusalem). The books do not treat Jewish history in any comprehensive manner, positively or negatively.

Present

Perhaps the most difficult issue is how to present Palestine in the present, since all matters (statehood, borders, Israeli settlements) remain unresolved. The books deliver no consistent message. Sometimes they seek to avoid the subject (for instance, a group of schoolchildren takes a trip from Gaza to Jerusalem; the books make no mention of the fact that checkpoints and closure make such a school trip impossible). Sometimes they convey the Palestinian national consensus (that Jerusalem must be their capital, that Israeli settlements harm Palestinians) while bypassing other issues. Sometimes they try to distinguish between “geographic” or “historic” Palestine with “political” Palestine. Thus they sometimes discuss (generally briefly) some areas within Israel’s 1967 borders. But each book also contains a foreword describing the West Bank and Gaza as “the two parts of the homeland.” In short, political realities are confusing and difficult for educators to describe to children. It would be unfair to describe such confused treatment as “delegitimation of Israel.”

Violence

Similarly, the books do not encourage violence. They do urge students to be willing to make self-sacrifice for the religion or nation (as most schoolbooks do), but they do not urge violence in that regard. One book does contain a poem praising the children who threw stones in the first intifada, but at the same time praises Gandhi at some length for non-violence.

In closing, allow me to make three observations:

The efforts to discredit Palestinian textbooks have already caused some damage. Many leading Palestinian educators have argued that the new curriculum should be designed not only to promote nationalist identity but also the skills of democratic citizenship. Stung by international criticism, education officials tend to be less open to such contributions than they were in the past. The cause of educational reform has been obstructed by the harsh and unfair international criticism. Schoolbooks are products of the broader political situation. The original plan for the Palestinian curriculum (produced in 1996) involved the introduction of Hebrew-language instruction as an elective in secondary school. I believe that plan is still in effect. But the deterioration of the broader political context has taken a toll. In 2000, a first-grade book had a picture of a coin from the era of the British mandate with Palestine written in both Hebrew and Arabic. In 2001, after a year of the second intifada, a picture of a Mandate-era postage stamp erased the Hebrew. The Palestinian curriculum is not a “war” curriculum. Neither is it a “peace” curriculum. A real peace curriculum will follow, not precede, a comprehensive peace.

I hesitate to compare the Israeli and Palestinian educational systems.

Their situations are different, and I conducted no study on Israeli textbooks. But my children have attended Israeli schools and I have tried to keep abreast of research by Israeli academics. My impression is that both Israeli and Palestinian schools handle an awkward political situation similarly: they are actually more similar than either side would like to admit!

Nathan Brown is Professor of Political Science and International Affairs, George Washington University.
He can be contacted at nbrown@gwu.edu

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR