PEACE AND HUMAN RIGHTS EDUCATION IN THE MIDDLE EAST: COMPARING JEWISH AND PALESTINIAN EXPERIENCES AGUSTÍN VELLOSO
Abstract – The Washington agreement of 1993 gave a new impetus to attempts by Palestinian and Israeli leaders to find a peaceful solution to their differences. The author asks to what extent this process has been accompanied by peace/human rights education programmes for Israeli and Palestinian children. While such programmes exist, they are very limited and have so far made little impact in reversing the long educational legacy of mutual distrust and hostility, which the article examines in detail. Furthermore, the continuing conflicts between the two communities make peace/human rights education difficult. However, despite the enormous obstacles, the author concludes that the efforts of peace/human rights educators are not wasted. Zusammenfassung – Das Washingtoner Abkommen von 1993 gab Versuchen, palästinensischen und israelischen Regierungsvertretern zu einer friedlichen Beilegung ihrer Differenzen zu verhelfen, neuen Auftrieb. Der Autor stellt die Frage, inwieweit dieser Prozeß von Bildungsprogrammen für israelische und palästinensische Kinder mit dem Thema Menschenrechte sowie Frieden begleitet wurde. Es gibt zwar solche Programme, sie sind jedoch sehr begrenzt und hatten bisher wenig Einfluß auf eine Umkehr des langen erzieherischen Vermächtnisses von gegenseitigem Mißtrauen und Feindschaft, was der Artikel detailliert untersucht. Außerdem erschweren die anhaltenden Konflikte zwischen den beiden Gemeinden Menschenrechtserziehung und Erziehung zum Frieden. Der Autor kommt zu dem Schluß, daß trotz der enormen Schwierigkeiten Bemühungen um diese beiden Bildungsformen sinnvoll sind. Résumé – Les accords de Washington ont donné en 1993 une nouvelle impulsion aux tentatives des leaders palestiniens et israéliens d’apporter une solution pacifique à leurs différends. L’auteur réfléchit dans quelle mesure ce processus s’est accompagné de programmes éducatifs pour la paix et les droits de la personne à l’intention des enfants de ces deux pays. De tels programmes existent effectivement, mais sont très restreints et ont eu jusqu’ici peu d’influence pour inverser le long héritage éducatif de méfiance et d’hostilité mutuelle, ce que l’article analyse en détail. En outre, les conflits encore irrésolus entre les deux communautés rendent difficile ce type d’éducation. Néanmoins, en dépit des énormes obstacles, l’auteur constate en conclusion que les efforts des éducateurs pour la paix et les droits de la personne ne sont pas investis en pure perte. Resumen – El convenio de Washington de 1993 ha dado nuevos impulsos a los esfuerzos realizados por líderes palestinos e israelíes en la búsqueda de soluciones pacíficas de sus diferencias. El autor plantea el interrogante de hasta en qué medida este proceso ha estado acompañado por programas de educación en materia de paz y derechos humanos para los niños israelíes y palestinos. Si bien estos programas existen, son muy limitados, y, en consecuencia, no han logrado revertir seriamente la legalización que durante muchos años habían recibido en la educación la desconfianza y las hostilidades mutuas, que el artículo examina detalladamente. Además, los conflictos persistentes entre las dos comunidades dificultan la educación en materia de International Review of Education – Internationale Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft – Revue Internationale de l’Education 44(4): 357–378, 1998. 1998 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
358 paz y derechos humanos. El autor llega a la conclusión de que, sin embargo y pese a los enormes obstáculos existentes, los esfuerzos realizados por los educadores en materia de paz y derechos humanos no han sido en vano.
The Middle East conflict and its historical context Although the first Arab-Israeli war took place in 1948, there were numerous instances animosity, violence, assassinations, and widespread fighting between Jews and Palestinians many years before the establishment of the State of Israel, also in 1948.1 The conflict is said to be 100 years old. It is not only an old conflict, it is also described as an intractable one. Its consequences go far beyond the small area in which it has unfolded, and the rest of the world is involved in some way or another in it. The past wars fought in historic Palestine and the neighbouring countries (1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, 1982), did not bring the end of the conflict,2 although the cease-fire and peace agreements reached between Israel and some of her enemies have brought a fragile stability into the area recently. Palestinian and Israeli leaders have signed several agreements in past few years conducive to a peace process.3 For the purpose of this study it can be said that the process started with the signing of the Declaration of Principles in Washington in September 1993 by Mr. Arafat and Mr. Rabin, leaders of the parties in conflict.4 The peace process has been studied by numerous authors from different fields and perspectives. Indeed, the whole Arab-Israeli conflict has been the subject of countless studies dealing with every aspect of it. There is an impressive amount of work devoted to the conflict prior to the peace process, as well as an enormous collection of official literature.5 There are books that compare the number of weapons and analyse the performance of the armies in the area.6
359 Many more deal with domestic, regional and world politics, while some other focus on the chances of peace from the point of view of the economic development in the whole Middle East.7 Some works stress the sharing of the scarce natural resources and the increase of economic bonds between Israel and her neighbours, while others advocate the total separation of the communities in conflict.8 Hundreds of history and social sciences books follow the sequence of the events in the Middle East. Other disciplines such as religion, psychology, literature and biography have been used to describe and explain the conflict and foresee its end.9 Several authors have recently noted the endless list of books available nowadays, some of them in an ironic way: “The abundance of scholarly books and articles on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict seems to be inversely proportional to their impact on a just and adequate solution. It seems like a Sysiphean labour to devote another book to the topic” (Waart 1994: xiii–xiv). On top of this, several studies have been devoted to education, especially to the effects of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip on the education of Palestinians living in these areas.10 International agencies and scholars with an interest in education have published a great deal about the Israeli education system, especially its ability to integrate Jewish immigrants into the new society, the education of Palestinian refugees, education during the intifada (uprising), and the formation of a Palestinian education system after an independent Palestinian state is established.11 In this paper, peace/human rights education both in Israel and in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip is studied.
The starting point: Peoples in conflict The populations to be compared are defined as Jewish and Palestinian. The meaning of both terms needs a preliminary explanation. Here, Jews are the citizens of Israel, living both inside Israel pre-1967 and in settlements of the occupied territories of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. 12 Jews living in America or in other parts of the world are not considered. The term “Israelis” has not been chosen because it includes approximately 18 per cent of Israel’s population who are Palestinians living in Israel. They partially receive similar educational influences to Jews, but they also receive different ones and they do not identify themselves with Jewish values and experiences. Here, Palestinians are those living in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.13 Palestinians living as refugees in Arab countries or as American or European citizens are not included. They share many experiences and values with West Bankers and Gazans, but some other experiences plus their educational influences are very different. The term “Arab” is also misleading, since it creates confusion between Palestinians and Iraquis, Jordanians, Syrians, etc. Both populations have much in common historically and, especially in the twentieth century, are part of the same scenario. Religious believers on both
360 sides proclaim a belief in an almighty and unique God, and share various prophets and other elements. Language and social costumes, organization and development, however, took different paths. The same happened with the development of their national identities in the past few centuries, which can be considered as intertwined but opposite. Jewish people, except for a tiny community who did not express national ambitions but a religious attachment to the place, lived outside Palestine for about 2000 years. Afterwards they began to settle in Palestine in the last years of the 19th century and above all in the 20th. In recent times, the most dramatic events for Jews were the persecutions they suffered before 1948, mainly by Europeans, although not by Arabs. In the worst of them, the Holocaust, nearly six million Jews were killed.14 Palestinians continuously inhabited Palestine as the successors of the ancient Canaanites and the Philistines, on the one hand, and the Arabs who conquered the land in the seventh century on the other. They were colonized for centuries by the Turks and later by the British shortly before 1948, and they never had a state of their own. When their national conscience was in the making, first because of foreign political interests and then because of these plus the establishment of the State of Israel, their aspirations to establish their own state were completely ruined. In recent times, the most dramatic events for Palestinians were the dispossession of their land in 1948 and the occupation of it afterwards, both at the hands of Israel. They changed from a colonized population to a refugee and occupied population.15 Both populations claim their respective rights to the same land, a land of which borders were never established. In this dispute every position can be found amongst the parties involved. These range from support for a binational state or a confederation of states in the area to proposals for forcible population transfer to neighbouring countries or across the sea. It is clear that some proposals necessarily involve the use of violent and warlike means, and that the international community is witness to the violence emanating from the current situation.16 Sovereignty over the land is the core of the conflict. However, the conflict is not solely a territorial one. On the Jewish side there are many who say God gave them the land for their exclusive settlement. On the Palestinian side there are many who say Palestine is an Islamic trust exclusively for the settlement of Muslim people. Thus, religion is used by both sides to support their respective claims. Also on similar grounds but with a stronger stake, some people invoke “divine commands” in order to justify or encourage violence and war against the other side. Compared to other conflicts – territorial, ethnic, political and religious – this one is not the most deadly in terms of numbers of people killed. However, violence has been and is a constant in the conflict and there is an ongoing fear of more killings, new wars and even a catastrophe that will engulf many nations. The continuous state of tension, the huge imbalance of forces involved, which hinders real dialogue, the outside political-military situa-
361 tion, which in turn influence this conflict, the harsh and deteriorating living conditions that Palestinians are undergoing – these do not give cause for optimism. Sealing of territories, curfews, suicide bombers, undercover units, torture, extra-judicial killings, stone-throwing, repression, house demolitions, mass deportations, armed confrontations – all these are ironically taking place in the most enthusiastically hailed peace process of the post-Second World War history. The endless chain of actions and reactions are contrary to peace and human rights and prevent the fulfilment of the Charter of the United Nations and of the Universal Declaration of Human rights.
The conditions for peace/human rights education: Human and economic resources It is rather difficult to measure the influence of education in the promotion of peace awareness in a community, let alone its part in the achievement of peace amongst nations. In spite of this, it is admitted that education has some influence in this respect. Out of a total population of around 5.5 million, “almost every third person in Israel studies in a formal education framework” (State of Israel, Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport 1996: 8). Almost the same could be said about Palestinians. “More than 650.000 Palestinian students are now in schools and more than 35.000 in colleges and universities, with about 30.000 teachers and employees in the education system. This means that 715.000 Palestinians are in education programmes (around 30 per cent of the population)” (Adwan 1996: 89). Jewish people with higher education – university and non-university included – reach 33.9 per cent, while Jewish people with little formal education, 0–4 years of schooling, reach 15.9 per cent (Israel, Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport 1996: 97–98). On the other hand, 4.2 per cent of the Palestinians earned a bachelors or doctoral degree, while 17.7 per cent received a secondary school leaving certificate. The literacy rate is 84 per cent.17 In spite of the differences in these figures, and even if quality differences between the two education systems are taken into account, the fact remains that big proportions of both populations can take advantage of educational policies that address the peace/human rights issue. There is no reason to think that, among the most educated sectors of both nations at least, these policies cannot be designed for the benefit of the whole population. On the other hand, the most influential international bodies in the education field have shown many times their interest in the area in reports and publications, so their expertise should be available for the task. If human resources are not scarce and the target populations are sufficiently equipped for such policies, economic resources should be able to support the effort. “The public expenditure on education (being part of the national expenditure) is 7.7 per cent in 1996. (. . .) national security remains a heavy burden (16 per cent of the government expenditure is in the area of defense)” (State
362 of Israel. Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport 1996: 54 and 7). There are no comparable figures for the Palestinian Authority, but only rough estimates of its “defense” expenses. This mainly means salaries for the approximately 40,000 or 50,000 strong police forces, its only defense structure, amounting to about US$ 400 million per year. According to a Palestinian Ministry of Education comuniqué, “It is estimated that the total expenditure in all levels of education amounts to approximately US$ 170 million per year. Of this amount about 80 per cent is spent on primary and secondary education” (Palestinian National Authority, Ministry of Education 1997: no pagination). The World Bank presented similar figures four years earlier (World Bank 1993: 37). According to the previous figures, both sides spend more than double on defense system than on education. Of course, there is no guarantee that money transfers from the military to education in order to promote peace will secure this – that is, unless all the moneys are transferred at once and forever.18 Although economic resources seem to be available in the area, especially when foreign aid is considered, there is a huge difference between the two sides. Israel has a solid economy, and its population enjoys high living standards. Palestinians are very far from both situations. Besides, Palestinians mostly depend on foreign donations, and the Palestinian Authority does not have real control of the meager economy, which in any case totally depends on Israel for its development.19 An estimate of the differences in economic power can be drawn from these facts: Israeli imports of Palestinian goods totaled US$ 300 million in 1995, while Palestinian imports of Israeli goods totalled US$ 1.8 billion in the same year; Palestinians do not have a say in Israeli economic activities, but the movement of Palestinian goods and peoples are subject to Israeli-imposed closure, and Palestinian economic activity is subject to approval and regulation by an Israeli/Palestinian Committee; Israeli markets are protected against Palestinian goods, but Palestinian markets are open to Israeli goods; in mid-1996 unemployment in Gaza reached 39 per cent, while Israel was accepting large numbers of foreign workers, around 70,000, mainly from Romania and Thailand.20 In addition to qualified people and economic resources, a country needs a “national will” to achieve peace. Support for the peace process in both populations, according to opinion polls carried out after 1993, has been decreasing although it seems that the majority of the people is still in favor of the peace process.21 It is advisable, however, to be careful in dealing with this information, since these surveys show how easily the public mood changes in reaction to political events, military operations and economic ups and downs. Above all, at the end of the day what really matters is not what people think or desire, but what people do. In spite of this, however, declarations of intentions have to be taken into account. “The State of Israel is a parliamentary democracy, built on the principles of liberty, justice and peace” (State of Israel, Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport 1996: 8). Israel is also a member of the United Nations
363 Organization and a signatory to international conventions on human rights and peace issues. Similar affirmations have been made by Palestine: “The State of Palestine proclaims its commitment to the principles and purposes of the United Nations, and to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (. . .) It further announces itself to be a peace-loving State, in adherence to the principles of peaceful coexistence” (Palestine National Council 1988). This state does not exist in reality, but the Palestinian people did make this Declaration and also have signed, through their representatives, under a special status, several international conventions in favour of peace and human rights. It could be added that both Judaism and Islam, their precepts and traditions, according to some of their followers at least, are religions that highly value peace and human rights. The same can be said of the Palestinian Christians, a tiny minority of the Palestinian population, whose religion also shares this feature with the two other religions “of the Book”.
The two education systems and peace/human rights education It is very difficult to compare the Israeli education system with the Palestinian education system. Strictly speaking the last one does not exist. Palestinians do not have a state of their own, although they have a Palestinian Authority and some other pseudo-national institutions and structures. Because of this lack of sovereignty, these remain almost all-dependent on Israel and lack the means for self-construction and development, although it is stated in the Transfer Agreement that “the powers and responsibilities of the military government and its Civil Administration in the sphere of education will be transferred to and will be assumed by the Palestinian Authority” (Educational Network 1994: 1). The Palestinian education system is in the making. Before 1994 there was no possibility of setting educational aims, no authority to design and implement educational policies, and no real control over the educational sector. Among other factors of this building process, it has to be mentioned that the new school curriculum – which will be a Palestinian curriculum for the first time in the history of this nation – is supposed to be implemented in the year 2,000. On the other hand, the Israeli education system has almost 50 years of experience in catering to the Jewish population. To this has to be added the experience of the Yishuv (the Jewish community in mandatory Palestine before the establishment of the State of Israel), and the fact that many Jewish immigrants came to Israel with high educational standards. Since the peace process is so recent, the vast majority of the people have been educated in the pre-peace period, which makes it necessary to pay attention to the education provided until 1994. During the previous 25 years, it seems that no special effort was made on either side to raise the issue amongst the professional educators. In Israel, in the educational research field, “The main topics are teaching methods, curriculum and student achievement” (State of Israel, Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport 1996: 101). These are the
364 usual topics of a modern and technologized country with a powerful education system, in a position to aim for high-quality results. The main topics of the Palestinian educational research are related to the problems of Palestinian education under Israeli occupation: poor school facilities and low teaching quality due to funding shortage and neglect by the occupying authority. “Education and cultural action should be geared towards liberation”, was the motto during the occupation. During the intifada (uprising), schoolchildren suffered the additional effects of widespread violence – detentions, beatings, killings – and the disruption of their education due to unrest, closures and curfews. In the period prior to the peace process the education systems could be hardly expected to consistently deal with peace issues. The Palestinian side, dependent as it was on the Israeli side, was not in a position to decide. Its influence on this issue was not comparable to the influence the Israelis could exert on it. Obviously, the prevailing atmosphere was not receptive to peace initiatives. On the Israeli side it could be stated that: “The government has almost total authority over the whole educational system through the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport” (Bitan 1996: 8). This meant that any independent activity not supported by the authorities had little chance of success. The peace process did not bring peace/human rights education for the very first time to the area, but its advocates were neither numerous nor influential enough to enjoy widespread attention. The Palestinian context It has to be noted that Israel used to censor the books and textbooks used in the schools of the occupied territories that it considered against its interests or inappropriate. So, educational materials for Palestinians could not convey messages of anti-Jewish or anti-Israeli sentiments: “The Israelis interfered, changed, deleted, or substituted parts of school curricula since the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in 1967. Through a number of military orders, laws, and regulations, Israel tried to distort school curricula for the sake of minimizing any national spirit among Palestinian youths” (Adwan 1996: 86). This makes it unnecessary to deal with Palestinian textbooks after 1967, although it does not imply that other educational means were not used by Palestinians educators to instil their feelings and opinions in the schoolchildren. While dealing with the period before 1967, it has to be noted that LaztrosYaffa (1967) analyzed hundreds of books used in schools in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip before the Israeli occupation. She points out that, though delegitimizing beliefs were detected in the school books, they did not constitute the main topic. Nevertheless, her examination yielded very many hostile excerpts against Israel and Jews. In Egyptian school books used in 1966 and 1967 in the Gaza Strip, Jews were portrayed as “imperialists, bandits,
365 expellers, enemies, hateful ones, aggressors, humiliators and infidels” (quoted in Bar-Tal 1991: 66). Either prevalent or minimal, the conveying of these messages through school books came to an end after 1967. This, of course, could not end the anti-Jewish feelings at the same time so easily. Oral transmission of values and feelings without the help of written materials could be continued. This, together with illegal literature, was employed throughout the education system and outside it. Teachers conveyed their messages inside the schools, behind the closed doors of the classrooms, free from the interference of the occupying power. This was not without risks, but not impossible either. This teaching took place in all educational levels, nursery schools included. Referring to the intifada (uprising) period, researchers at the Brigham Young University, Jerusalem Center for Near East Studies, state that “Teachers and peers have acted as significant socializing agents, instilling political norms through the teaching of rhymes from pamphlets, books and tapes distributed by the Palestinian underground leadership. By constant repetition of a few stanzas over a period of two or three weeks, the children memorized them. Accompanying the rhymes, usually half-chanted, half-spoken, were gestures such as the victory sign, a clenched fist, a commando posture, the pointing to an imaginary flag, or the upright stance of a soldier marching in the underground popular army” (Nazzal and Nazzal 1996: 26). In their analysis of the rhymes, these authors review their general themes: patriotism, liberation through rebellion, yearning for freedom from oppression, loss of identity, resistance, self-reliance and hatred of Jews. They conclude their study by establishing a cause-effect relationship between the violence of the occupation and the rhymes that convey violent messages. “As blood and violent death became part of the children’s lives, they had no qualms about reciting or chanting a rhyme about driving Jews from their land. Hatred and revenge were reactions to the fact that now they had no home, or that a parent or sibling limped, or was killed. The rhymes rationalized all this violence, explained the brutality and gave purpose to their lives, helping them overcome their desperation under Israeli Occupation” (Nazzal and Nazzal 1996: 36). The messages conveyed by Palestinian educators focus on what Palestinian people describe as the “Catastrophe”: the dispossession of their land and the refugee experience that took place in 1948. They see themselves as the victims of the interests of foreign powers, victims of a historical injustice accompanied by occupation, massacres, dispersion, terror, expulsion and dispossession. Expressions of rebellion and struggle for liberation follow the mourning for the suffering. However, the mentioning of international legitimacy is present too. The central message admits some variations which depend on different experiences, realities, aspirations: from return to the land to the use of force and all means to expel the occupier. The use of violence is justified as the last resort available to redress the historical injustice they suffer.
366 The Israeli context Academics working in the Harry S. Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace, at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, have been lately carrying out a review of textbooks used in Israeli schools. Several studies are still going on, but some results are already available. “The analysis of textbooks is only one part of an ambitious Peace Education Project, now in its planning stages”. These scholars think that “school curriculums and the contents of books are major factors in molding the minds of children”. What messages have Israeli schoolchildren been receiving?22 “The enemies of the people – the Arabs – have been portrayed over the years of our children’s education, within a dichotomy of good guys vs. bad guys. (. . .) The central message conveyed through Israeli education has emphasized the national unity of the people vis-à-vis the enemy. This is a constant imperative although ‘they’ change identity over time” (Gor 1996: 22). This central message is not unique and admits variations which depend on the prevailing atmosphere at the time of teaching, the school guidelines, and the teacher’s own position concerning the conflict. It may focus on the “survival” stand. Here, the enemy wants to annihilate all the Jews. The paramount example, although not the only one, is the history of the Holocaust. “The simplistic messages conveyed by and in this system result, I believe, from the syndrome of power vs. helplessness which rules our lives. The internal world-view of many Jews who live in the State of Israel is the worldview of the persecuted. Our collective memory of our parents’ suffering in the Holocaust, makes us susceptible to fears and sensibilities beyond our choice and control. As second-generation survivors of the Holocaust (of which I am one), we have forged an internal reality characterized by aggressiveness, vulnerability, anger and guilt. ‘We won’t let it happen to us’: we are strong and threatening and, ‘we’ll break their bones’ if they dare to hurt us” (Gor 1996: 22). The message can emphasize love for the Jewish nation and adherence to the Jewish heritage. Then, a sense of differentiation and superiority appears concerning other peoples, especially Arabs, whose culture is seen as inferior and who consequently deserve to be treated as inferiors. “Israel school books have contributed to the maintenance of delegitimizing beliefs about Palestinians (. . .) Arabs were usually presented as devoid of personal identity. In the majority of stories they were portrayed as primitive or backward, and given such labels as ‘bandits, wicked, blood-thirsty, murderers, gangs, or rioters’. (. . .) In a few stories (1972) or poems, epithets were particularly delegitimizing with expressions such as ‘savages, human animals or satanic enemy’ ” (Bar-Tal 1991: 66). The message can take a stronger stand that emphasizes the attachment to the land of Israel and its holiness (including the occupied territories and more land) and the sole right of the Jews to settle to the detriment of other peoples.
367 “For the young generation of Israelis, control over the whole of Palestine is considered something natural, something that has always been and always will be. The Palestinians are considered ‘outsiders’ who aim to destroy the Jewish state or, failing this, to grab a part of it for themselves” (Flapan 1987: 11). One step further, the struggle against the non-Jews is shown as worthy and the end – exclusive sovereignty over the land – justifies any means – occupation, expulsion, war. “Several generations of high school students have been educated in the belief that the ‘holy’ aim of holding on to land permits any enormity in the name of occupation and security, and this has been the official policy of a large part of the ‘people of Israel living in Zion’. (. . .) Yigal Amir [the convicted assassin of Israel Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995] was born into this environment. The education he received was no different from that received by the vast majority of Israeli citizens. He learned to see land and might as holy, and to hate whoever would take them from him. (. . .) He killed for the sake of an ideology in which hundreds of thousands of Israelis believe, of which numerous spiritual mentors and interpreters of religious law approve, and to which more than one political party adheres” (Shelah 1996: 10–11). If one perceives the group to which one belongs as a victim of “the others” then it is only a short step to believing that one is justified in fighting those others. “In the opinion of many of its citizens, the State of Israel is the answer to the Holocaust and the Arabs represent the outside forces striving for our destruction (succeeding the Nazis), simply one more instance in the long history of our triumphant and defiant struggle to survive. This veil of feelings originating in the collective identity of first-, second- and third generation survivors of the Jewish Holocaust, makes some of us unable to distinguish between our feelings of victimization – rooted elsewhere – and the reality of our existence here and now. In the absence of such a separation, every terrorist act becomes anti-Semitic, directed against Jews for the sole reason for their Jewishness. This in turn leads to the conclusion that the struggle against the enemy is a fight to the death, justifying any and every act, regardless of its price: extended curfews imprisoning large (Palestinian) populations within their homes, human-rights abuses, enforced poverty for a population of close to two million, shooting of demonstrators and innocent bystanders” (Gor 1996: 24). This is the institutional educational legacy that the current peace process received. What it is important to note is that this educational line, with its different variations, has been and is instilled into generation after generation of schoolchildren throughout Israel and the occupied territories. And this is being made both on a national and planned basis and on an individual and more or less spontaneous basis. The individual psychology of each educator and the circumstances of particular settings, in their turn, shape the concrete educational actions that influence the children. Those with responsibility in the education system, necessarily reflecting the prevailing values of their
368 society, chose this educational line for the building of the national project. Then, the result affect the whole society with its implications reaching all the peoples living in the area.
The peace process and education Israeli peace education Has the peace process brought any change to the prevalent educational line? “The Israeli Ministry of Education was caught unprepared, but its reaction was astonishingly quick. In a matter of a few weeks after the ceremony in Washington [the signing of the Declaration of Principles in 1993], the first “peace” booklets were presented on local television and sent to pilot schools. A ministerial committee was formed, at long last, to check the image of Arabs in textbooks [. . .] During 1993–1994 teacher training was offered to the educators and various new materials were composed by employees of the Ministry of Education or by others, with the Ministry’s support. The year 1994–1995 was proclaimed by the Ministry to be dedicated in all state schools to the ‘Peace Process: Israel in the Middle East’ ” (Firer 1996: 79). The Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport made public its own activities related to the peace process: “The Middle East peace process and recent political developments have stimulated the education system to intensify its efforts in the areas of education for peace, international understanding and tolerance” (State of Israel, Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport 1996: 8). Although in peace studies the distinction is made between education for peace, also known as the affective approach, and education about peace, also known as the cognitive approach, it has to be noted that the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport makes no difference between both approaches. In fact, students can only take advantage of the cognitive approach. The affective approach is almost non-existent, only available to a tiny group. How can the differences between these two sources, one stating that the educational authority was caught unprepared and another announcing that efforts are being intensified, be explained? The Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport cannot ignore the peace process and has to make public a general declaration of intentions concerning its role in it. Specific educational actions are another matter. Dr. Firer, who has a long background in peace education issues, explains the existing gap between intentions and action. It becomes obvious in her analysis that by the time those – flexible – ministerial statements reach the schoolrooms, a chain of conditions, adaptations, interpretations and manipulations, leaves peace/human rights education completely open. In 1995 the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport invited the public to write books dealing with peace issues. These could be recommended by the Ministry as educational materials for schools. They had to comply with 31 criteria, “25 of an informative nature concerning the political peace process,
369 one about the democratic procedures in the State of Israel such as issues of majority and minority, conflict resolution, law obedience and tolerance; four criteria deal with peace values, such as the universal value, the Jewish version as reflected in literature and art, the intrinsic peace of the individual, peace between people and their surroundings, within family and among friends, reaching to peace among nations. One criterion is open to the author’s choice. [Thus . . .] the political information is worth 80.6 per cent out of the issues of peace making; value/moral education – 12.9 per cent, and tackling the concrete implications of the process in everyday life in the trouble reality of Israeli democracy – a mere 3.2 per cent” (Firer 1996: 80–81). Once the books are in the school, it does not mean that teachers actually have to make use of them. “The manuals are not supposed to replace history or civics lessons; they are extracurricular enrichment to be practiced in the weekly pedagogical hours and usually guided by the home teacher. Therefore, they exclude the historical story of the Arab-Israeli conflict and are satisfied with some highlights of the peace process and of the background” (Firer 1996: 81). If the books are used, because of the above mentioned imbalance in the contents, that may result in the presentation of a lot of information to schoolchildren without much relation to their lives in Israel, it does not mean that they will make any positive impact on the children’s attitudes. [. . . Take the booklet] ‘Outlook on Peace: Facts, Chances and Risks (Friedman et al. 1994); the first chapter includes 9 examples of peace agreements, 8 of which end in failure. The only one that does not fail is about the German unification which is emotionally problematic for Israelis” (Firer 1996: 82). The reaction of the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport to the peace process was started when the Labour Party was in power. After the last Israeli general elections in May 1996 were won by the Likud Party and Mr. Netanyahu was elected Prime Minister, defeating Mr. Peres, the Ministry’s guidelines were revised according to the new government’s political line. This means, for example, that the stress placed on “education for co-existence and democracy” (which had an ad hoc department in the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport, now significantly merged in a bigger one for the more general topic of “civics and values education”) has been shifted to education for citizenship. This teaching has to be “based on the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state: the sanctity of life, human dignity, and human rights, basic freedoms, equality, democratic values, the rule of law, tolerance and fairness in interpersonal and international relationships” (State of Israel, Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport 1996: 32). This shift is coupled with two other moves that strengthen the new line. First, the civics curriculum will be uniform for all sectors functioning in the Israeli education system, regardless of their respective character: state, statereligious, Hebrew and Arab. Secondly, civics will not only be taught as a subject (one hour per week in primary education, three hours per week in lower secondary education, and four hours per week in upper secondary education), but will be incorporated into every aspect of the curriculum and school
370 life. So, there will be more uniformity and control and less room for extracurricular teaching. The Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport is devoted to reinforcing the teaching of Jewish values, which inevitably will take the time devoted to other teachings. Peace education has not been officially obliterated, there is no need for that, it will be left to fade away. At the same time, it has to be noted that the values listed include, at least mention, the teaching of peace/human rights issues. However, if peace education was easily diluted when it was singled out, what will happen to it when it is not? Palestinian peace education Palestinians are used to seeing the peace/human rights issue from the point of view of the victim, lacking both peace and human rights. As far as they were an occupied nation,23 they maintained their right to fight for liberation. Where human rights violations took place in the occupied territories, they reported about these violations. “Throughout the occupation Palestinian human rights organizations confined their work to accumulation of legal research studies and statistics and documentation of Israeli violations of Palestinian human rights in the occupied territories, especially those violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention. In addition, these institutions provided services specific to fighting for the legal rights of Palestinian political prisoners. With the emergence of the Palestinian-Israeli peace process, several human rights organizations began to work for the first time in teaching human rights and creating awareness on the subject within the Palestinian society” (Educational Network 1996: 10). The new Palestinian curriculum, to be implemented in the year 2000, does not deal with peace/human rights education issues. It does not deal either with the broader subject of peace and human rights in general. The closest mention to this is the following one: “The aim of the curriculum is to enable every Palestinian who successfully completes 12 years of schooling to have adequate broad knowledge, positive values of participation, modernity, equal coexistence of societies, democracy and technical skills either to join the labour force or to pursue his/her higher education or both” (Palestinian Curriculum Development Center 1996: 6). Thus, under the Palestinian Authority, the aim of “equal coexistence of societies and democracy” leaves peace/human rights education as undetermined as the aim of “education for co-existence and democracy” left peace/human rights education under the Israeli government. This vagueness in the wording of both texts and its foreseeable consequences for peace/human rights education did not seem to catch the attention of UNESCO, which signed an agreement of cooperation with the Palestinian Ministry of Education in 1994, or at least it did not bother the organisation enough to recommend a clearer statement on the issue. Some educators were aware of the significance of peace/human rights education in the curriculum, in spite of the general disregard for this teaching on the Palestinian side. However, it can be said that they were never influential
371 enough to spread their thinking in the society. “As we Palestinians and Israelis have lived all these years in war and hatred and our cultures have been built viewing each other as enemies and opposites, each shared reality and shared value negates the existence of the other side. Victories of one side are disasters for the other side. One side’s heroes are the other side’s monsters. Joy on one side is misery for the other side.” The peace process is viewed by those to be dependent on a change of attitudes, and this may be brought about by education. “If the peace process is to continue, we should work toward a culture of peace instead of a culture of enmity, war and destruction, and education could play this role: education for prosperity, dignity, and human rights. For the sake of peace we have to alter our modes of education” (Adwan 1996: 91 and 90). Palestinians are not used to peace studies, consequently it is hard to find people aware of the differences between the two approaches in peace teaching: cognitive and affective. Those who support peace/human rights education are doing what they can to raise awareness about it amongst the Palestinians. Today more and more teachers are receiving some training in human rights issues by specialized teacher training and human rights associations. The problem is that this training is being carried by NGOs, which are mainly concentrated in the center of the West Bank, so other areas are not being reached, and there is no guarantee of continuation of the activities. The lack of historical perspective in this teaching means that students tend to link human rights abuses only with Israeli violations, while their teachers do not have much experience in this area. The extent of their influence in the educational field, teachers and principals, and the Authority’s answer to their efforts, still remain to be seen. “In May of 1994 the Palestinian Branch of Amnesty International trained a group of 55 teachers through intensive courses in Ramallah and Gaza under the supervision of the American Branch of Amnesty International [. . .] The 55 teachers, with help from the Palestinian Center for Research and Study, participated in training teachers in Nablus and Ramallah in workshops entitled: Education for Democracy in Schools. Therewith, the 55 teachers with their trainees began workshops on how to teach human rights in the various academic subject matters. [. . .] They are aspiring towards incorporating the curriculum into that of the Ministry of Education so that it will be used by all teachers under the ministry” (Educational Network 1996: 10).
Conclusion: Peace and human rights in Israel and in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip It has been shown that peace/human rights education did not take and it is not taking any real role in the education of the large majority of the schoolchildren on either side. Why not? The answer lies outside the education system itself. The education system mainly reflects the society in which it is functioning. It is possible to find some deviations from the mainstream, but they
372 are not significant enough to leave any imprint on the majority. The fact is that the majority of the population on both sides is living in an environment devoid of peace and human rights. This situation is mirrored in the educational systems of the region. The consequences of this deficiency in education were pointed out by certain writers before the occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip took place in 1967. “On October 13, 1953, Arab infiltrators from the region of Kibiyeh an Arab village in Samaria – tossed a hand grenade into a Jewish home in the immigrant village of Yehud. A mother and two of her children were killed in their sleep. [. . .] On October 14, an Israeli force attacked Kibiyeh, which is a considerable distance past the truce line. In this action, more than fifty inhabitants of the village were killed and forty houses were destroyed. [. . .] the events at Kibiyeh were a consequence of applying the religious category of holiness to social, national, and political values and interests – a usage prevalent in the education of young people as well as in the dissemination of public information” (Leibowitz 1992: 185 and 189). Immediately after the occupation, another warning was made about the damaging consequences for peace and human rights because of the impressive victory won by Israel in the Six Day War. “We are condemned to live in our country without peace and security, just as the Jewish people have existed for thousands of years. [. . .] A state ruling a hostile population of 1.5 to 2 million foreigners would necessarily become a secret-police state, with all this implies for education, free speech, and democratic institutions. The corruption characteristic of every colonial regime would also prevail in the state of Israel. The administration would have to suppress Arab insurgency on the one hand and acquire Arab quislings on the other” (Leibowitz 1992: 225–226). Twenty years later, when the intifada had just started, those words could not be more accurate, as were also these ones, written in the middle of the turmoil: “Israel ceased to be the state of the Jewish people and became an apparatus of coercive rule of Jews over another people. [. . .] only a Jewish regime of force. The state of Israel today is neither a democracy nor a state abiding by the rule of law, since it rules over a million and a half people deprived of civil and political rights” (Leibowitz 1992: 243). Leibowitz, M. Buber, S. Flapan, J. Magnes, M. Smilansky 24 and others who shared these thoughts, never managed to attract the majority of their Jewish fellow countrymen to their side. However, it is still possible today to see how correct were their assessments. The Landau Commission (named after High Court judge Landau, president of the Commission), on 30 October 1987, presented its report on the interrogation methods the Israeli security services used with political detainees. It reported about awful and inadmissible methods, which included torture. These methods, still in use, have been considered totally unacceptable by the Committee Against Torture of the United Nations. Other human rights violations have been repeatedly condemned. “Data compiled by the Attorney General indicate that, in 1987–1994, the General Security Service interrogated more than 23,000 Palestinians. The late prime
373 minister, Yitzhak Rabin, stated that, according to his figures, the GSS had ‘shaken’ [euphemism used to avoid the more accurate word ‘tortured’] some 8,000 Palestinians as of the middle of 1995” (the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group and B’Tselem 1996: 3). Today, data reflect the same situation: peace and human rights are violated and thousands of Jewish and Palestinian young people are being educated in this environment. “During the six years the intifada lasted, according to Premier Yitzhak Rabin, 250,000 IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) troops underwent posting in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. That amounted to one in three of all male Jewish Israelis, aged 18 to 50” (Hiro 1996: 216). Violations of human rights and actions against peace are not exclusive to one side. It happens that Jewish peace/human rights writers and activists are outspoken, while it is much more difficult to find Palestinians critical of their own peace/human rights violations. In any case, those placed in a higher and dominant position are to be held more accountable than those in a lower and subject position. The Palestinian National Charter of 1968 announces that “Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine” and it is hoped that this “liberation of Palestine will destroy the Zionist and imperialist presence [. . .] in the Middle East” (Quoted in Fraser 1980: 120–122). Before this, the Arab revolts of the 1930s brought violence and killings – even Arabs favouring peaceful arrangements with the Jews were killed by other Arabs opposed to these. The “Catastrophe”, as the refugee experience of 1948 is known amongst Palestinians, was seen as something that had to be avenged with violence: “One thing was self-evident, not worthy of discussion; this was that they could only recover by force what had been taken by force. The Return dominated everything, but violence, a just and necessary violence, was a sub-theme. The Return shaped camp rituals and regalia; children were steeped in it from birth. Schools were decorated with pictures of Palestine and of ‘martyrs’ who had fallen in the struggle to preserve it” (Hirst 1984: 266–267). After the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the violence persisted. “Above all, it was a product of extreme frustration and despair, the feeling that only by shocking the world could the Palestinians get it to redress the injustice it had done, or even to consider it as such. [. . .] They [the fedayeen, Palestinian guerillas] grew more and more capricious in their choice of targets, ever more remote from the real, the Palestinian battlefield, ever more incoherent, not to say incomprehensible, in what they hoped to achieve” (Hirst 1984: 320). Nowadays, while the peace process is being implemented, Palestinian Authority violations are well documented. “During 1996, numerous and systematic human rights violations occurred in areas controlled by the PNA. Mass arbitrary arrest campaigns resulted in the detention of hundreds of people [. . .] holding most of the detainees without charge or trial. Palestinian security forces are also responsible for torture of detainees. [. . .] State Security Courts, whose proceedings fall far short of minimum standards for a fair trial, were used to try detainees (the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group and B’Tselem 1996: 13).
374 It would be naive to think that the education systems in the Middle East could function inside an impenetrable bubble, in a world apart from the real world. Many “educational” influences outside and inside the education systems provided to the public revolve around violence. “The forms which this violence have taken are diverse. It has been both Arab and Jewish. It has been individual and spontaneous, or large-scale and state-sponsored; a selective assassination or an indiscriminate massacre of innocents; a clumsy protest of illiterate peasants or the ruthless exploits of ‘revolutionary’ zealots, frontier raids and reprisals, mobs on the rampage, or the deliberate uprooting, through terror, of whole communities” (Hirst 1984: 13). How can an education system be expected to redress this “educational influence”? It hardly can – either because the education system is in line with the environment, or because its influence is much weaker than the environment’s influence. The sad conclusion is that five important wars, many more smaller but deadly confrontations, attacks and counter-attacks, and widespread human rights violations have a far more “educational” effect than ministerial booklets and NGO campaigns. In spite of this, there is some room for hope. There are educators who challenge the environment. Even if they are a minority, their work is not being wasted. Students who learn with them and share values and experiences can make a difference in their own milieu and in the larger society. On the policy makers’ side there is less room for hope. They can encourage a policy of peace/human rights education in schools, but they can also implement other policies against peace/human rights at the same time. Above all, they should be aware of the effects of peace/human rights education on the society. Then, they should have the will to support schools and teachers involved in this education and increase their numbers. Finally, both the educators’ and the policy makers’ actions should be supported by the people: students’ parents and voters in general.
Notes 01. Derogy and Carmel write about “four Arab revolts, six wars, 15,000 Jews killed and 50,000 Arab killed in 100 years of Zionism”. For more data about this and related issues, see Bensimon, D. and Errera, E. 1993. Israéliens. Des Juifs et des Arabes. Bruxelles: Editions Complexe; Derogy, J. and Carmel, H. 1994. Le siècle d’Israel. Les secrets d’une épopée 1895–1995. Mesnil-sur-l’Estrée: Fayard; Khouri, F. 1976. The Arab-Israeli Dilemma. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press, 2nd ed.; Tessler, M. 1994. A History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 02. These wars originated memoirs by participants and analysis by observers. See, for example, Alexander, E. 1996. The Jewish Wars. Reflections by One of the Belligerents. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Pres; Herzog, C. 1984. The Arab-Israeli Wars. New York, NY: Vintage Books. 03. After the international conference held in Madrid in 1991 with the intifada (uprising) going on, and the secret conversations that followed in Norway, the
375
04.
05.
06.
07.
08. 09.
10.
11.
12. 13. 14. 15. 16.
watershed was the signing of the Declaration of Principles in Washington in 1993. The impact of the 1993 agreements on the development of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the wider Arab-Israeli conflict has been discussed in several publications. See, for example, Benvenisti, E. 1993. The Israeli-Palestinian Declaration of Principles: A Framework for Future Settlement. European Journal of International Law 4: 542–554. For grey literature see United Nations. 1978. The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem. New York: UN; United Nations. 1992. Question of Palestine: Legal Aspects. New York: UN; for well known studies see Flapan, S. 1987; Hirst, D. 1984; Moore, J. (ed.) 1974–1991. The Arab-Israeli Conflict. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 6 vols.; and the ones cited above and below amongst many others. Although military data are usually kept classified, some information is available. See, for example, a recent study of the military capabilities and buildup in the Middle East by Cordesman, A. 1996. Perilous Prospects. The Peace Process and the Arab-Israeli Military Balance. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. There are many publications about the economy: trade, development, investment. . . . Several studies focus on the benefits for the whole region that may follow the implementation of the peace agreements. See, for example, Bahiri, S. et al. 1993. Peace Pays. Palestinians, Israelis and the Regional Economy. Jerusalem: Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information; also see World Bank 1993. See, for example, Peters, J. 1994. Building Bridges. The Arab-Israeli Multilateral Talks. London: The Royal Institute for International Affairs. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is an inexhaustible source for writers of all fields. Poets, political analysts, religious leaders, historians, and many other specialists feel attracted to the subject. Several points of view can be observed in the works by Arnold, A. 1995. Judaism: Myth, Legend, History, and Custom, from the Religious to the Secular. Montreal: Robert Davies Publishing; Ashrawi, H. 1995. This Side of Peace. A Personal Account. New York: Simon & Schuster; Oz, A. 1994. Israel, Palestine and Peace. London: Vintage. Abdul-Hadi, L. and Nur-Edin, A. 1985. Selected Bibliography of Works on Education. Birzeit Research Review 1(1): 69–78; Graham-Brown, S. 1984. Education, Repression & Liberation: Palestinians. London: World University Service. Iram, Y. 1990. Education in Israel: A Source Book. New York: Garland; Educational Network. 1994–1996; Nasru, F. 1993. Preliminary Vision of a Palestinian Education System. Birzeit, West Bank: Birzeit University; Ramsden, S. and Senker, C. (eds.) 1993. Learning the Hard Way. Palestinian Education in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Israel. London: World University Service. For general information on this population, see State of Israel. Central Bureau of Statistics. 1996. Statistical Abstract of Israel 1996. Jerusalem: C.B.S. For general information on this population, see Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics. 1996a. Laqueur, W. 1973. Histoire du Sionisme. Paris: Calman-Lévy; Reinharz, J. and Shapira, A. (eds.) 1996. Essential Papers on Zionism. New York: New York University Press. Gorni, Y. 1987. Zionism and the Arabs 1882–1948: A Study of Ideology. Oxford: Clarendon; Morris, B. 1994. 1948 and After: Israel and the Palestinians. Oxford: Clarendon. See, for example, the various United Nations Resolutions on violations of international law and conventions that have been taking place throughout the years, and Waart, P. 1994.
376 17. Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics 1996a. For more data see: Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics 1996b. 18. On the general economy in the area and the military burden, see Clement, F. 1995. Les industries d’armament au Moyen-Orient: Paix et reconversion, in Blin, L. and Fargues, P. (eds.). L’Économie de la paix au Proche-Orient. Maisonneuve et Larose: CEDEJ. 19. See, for example, the powerful study by Roy, S. 1995. The Gaza Strip. The Political Economy of De-development. Washington, D.C.: Institute for Palestinian Studies. 20. Jerusalem Media and Communication Center. 1997a. Signed, Sealed, Delivered: Israeli Settlements and the Peace Process. Jerusalem: JMCC. 21. Jerusalem Media and Communication Center. 1997b. Public Opinion Poll No. 20 on Palestinian Attitudes Towards Current Issues. Jerusalem: JMCC. 22. The introductory words in the “Director’s Report” are a telling symptom of the state of affairs in the area: “The Truman Institute faced new challenges during this past academic year of 1995–1996. The slowing down of the Middle East peace process and the actual situation on the ground made for more difficult conditions in the furthering of cooperative ties with our colleagues in the Arab world and with the Palestinians in particular. The closure of the Territories and the general mood of frustration which set in during the year (. . .) put up serious obstacles to meeting” (The Harry S. Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace 1996: 2, 4 and 28–30). 23. In spite of the Washington and subsequent agreements, occupation is still in force. The Palestinian Authority is very dependent on Israel in all areas of national development, although it is allowed to exercise some authority over internal affairs, as a municipality. 24. Leibowitz’s and Flapan’s works are listed in the References page. Amongst Buber’s works on Palestine, the book he published with Magnes and Smilansky in 1946, Palestine a Binational State. New York: The Ihud Association of Palestine, includes many thoughts supporting a peaceful coexistence.
References Adwan, S. 1996. A Curriculum for Peace and Coexistence. In: The Psychology of Peace and Conflict: The Israeli-Palestinian Experience. Jerusalem: Harry S. Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace. Bar-Tal, D. 1991. Understanding Psychological Bases of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Tel-Aviv: The International Center for Peace in the Middle East. Bitan, D. 1996. Israeli Education: A Critical Profile. Palestine-Israel Journal of Politics, Economics and Culture 3(1): 7–14. Educational Network. 1994. Palestinian Education in Palestinian Hands. Educational Network 16/17: 1–2. Educational Network. 1996. Human Rights in Education. Educational Network 23: 10–11. Firer, R. 1996. From Peace Making to Tolerance Building. In: The Psychology of Peace and Conflict: The Israeli-Palestinian Experience. Jerusalem: Harry S. Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace. Flapan, S. 1987. The Birth of Israel. Myths and Realities. New York: Pantheon Books.
377 Fraser, T. 1980. The Middle East, 1914–1979. London: Edward Arnold. Gor, H. 1996. The Perception of the Other and the Holocaust in Israeli Education. Palestine-Israel Journal of Politics, Economics and Culture 3(1): 21–25. The Harry S. Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace. 1996. The Psychology of Peace and Conflict: The Israeli-Palestinian Experience. Jerusalem: Harry S. Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace. Hiro, D. 1996. Sharing the Promised Land. An Interwoven Tale of Israelis and Palestinians. London: Hodder & Stoughton. Hirst, D. 1984. The Gun and the Olive Branch. The Roots of Violence in the Middle East, 2nd ed. London: Faber & Faber. Leibowitz, Y. 1992. Judaism, Human Values and the Jewish State. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Mar’i, S. 1984. Education, Culture and Identity Among Palestinians in Israel. London: International Organization for the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination. Nazzal, N. and Nazzal, L. 1996. The Politicization of Palestinian Children: An Analysis of Nursery Rhymes. Palestine-Israel Journal of Politics, Economics and Culture 3(1): 26–36. Palestine National Council. 1988. Declaration of Palestinian Independence. Algiers: PNC. Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics. 1996a. Demographic Survey 1995. Ramallah, West Bank: PCBS. Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics. 1996b. Education Statistical Yearbook, 1995/1996, No. 2. Ramallah, West Bank: PCBS. Palestinian Curriculum Development Center. 1996. A Comprehensive Plan for the Development of the First Palestinian Curriculum for General Education. An Executive Summary. Ramallah, West Bank: PCDC. The Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group and B’Tselem. 1996. Human Rights in the Occupied Territories Since the Oslo Accords: Status Report: Jerusalem: PHRMG/B’Tselem. Palestinian National Authority. Ministry of Education. 1997. Palestinian National Authority. Ministry of Education. Ramallah, West Bank: PNA.ME. Shelah, O. 1996. Natural Born Killers. News From Within 12(9): 10–11. First published in Ma’ariv, on August 16, 1996. State of Israel. Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport. 1996. Facts and Figures About Education in Israel. Jerusalem: M.E.C.S. Waart, P. 1994. Dynamics of Self-Determination in Palestine. Protection of Peoples as a Human Right. Leiden: E.J. Brill. World Bank. 1993. Developing the Occupied Territories. An Investment in Peace. Vol. 6, Human Resources and Social Policy. Washington, DC: WB.
378 The author Agustín Velloso earned his PhD in education at the Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (Spain’s Distance Learning University) in 1987. He is currently lecturer in comparative education at the same university. He has been visiting fellow at the University of London Institute of Education (1993–1994) and at the Stanford University School of Education (1996–1997). His research and publications focus on education in Palestine and in the Western Sahara, and education for refugees. Contact address: Dr Agustín Velloso, UNED, Nicaragua 2, Madrid, Spain. E-mail:
[email protected].