Here's the conclusion from IPCRI's report in it's entirety
http://www.ipcri.org/files/4&9report.pdf
http://www.ipcri.org/files/4&9report.pdf
Some of the illustrations and references,
however, are vague in their representations and in the message they carry or try to
convey, especially as they relate to the historical, geographic and cultural aspects of the
region. In particular, one notices an element of ambiguity in the concept of the
“homeland” and in the presentation of the different types of maps.
The review of the content of the 4th and 9th grade textbooks revealed numerous
instances that introduce and promote the universal and religious values and concepts of
respect of other cultures, religions, and ethnic groups, peace, human rights, freedom of
speech, justice, compassion, diversity, plurality, tolerance, respect of law, and
environmental awareness. However, several other sensitive issues of great importance to
the present and future of the region are briefly discussed, ignored or bypassed (e.g., the
Oslo Accords, recognition of and peace with Israel, political tolerance and open
denouncement of violence, joint and cooperative ventures in the economic, medical,
academic, environmental domains). In addition, a number of historical events are
presented from a single perspective rendering some accounts questionable regarding their
historical accuracy.
The concept of Jihad in both its militant and peaceful dimensions is highlighted in
a good number of textbooks with more focus given to the former (historically and in
present-day contexts). The textbooks include a large number of direct and indirect
references to martyrdom interwoven, in several instances, with the concepts of defending and liberating the homeland. In the context of today’s political reality serious questions
are raised regarding the lessons pupils are being directed towards, given that martyrdom
is directly linked to the Palestinian struggle against Israel.
The new curriculum, reflected in the recently published textbooks, cannot be
described as a war curriculum. Neither is it a peace curriculum. The textbooks do not
contain calls for the destruction of the State of Israel. However, students are exposed to
texts that promote the religious and national duty of loving and defending the homeland
and the Palestinian culture.
The textbooks do not openly promote violence and hatred and do not openly
preach amity and concord. They include references that point to the need to respect
international legitimacy (UN resolutions and other internationally reached agreements).
They also include texts that encourage students to make sacrifices for their homeland,
nation, and religion, without discussion any limitations to those sacrifices.
Peace as a theme is addressed in a number of religious, social and political
references and contexts. For example, the textbooks contain passages that warn students
of the dangers of conflict and wars. They are encouraged, instead, to resort to peaceful
negotiation, dialogue, and other peaceful and constructive forms of conflict resolution.
The texts, however, fail to spell out the need to apply these values and practices to the
Arab-Israeli conflict.
Israel, as a sovereign state in the political and geographic sense is not clearly or
adequately represented in the new textbooks. Only two direct references are made to the
“State of Israel” while multiple indirect references are made to it as a political and
geographic entity in the form of “the Jewish State,” “the Jewish entity,” and “the Jewish
State.”
As far as Jews and Israelis are concerned, the textbooks are critical of Israel’s
policies and practices (killing, confiscating land, imprisoning Palestinians, demolishing
homes, uprooting trees, confiscating land, and building settlements) and of the Zionist
movement’s principles and teachings.
Along the same line, although the textbooks are replete with references to the
principles and values of reconciliation, compassion, religious and political tolerance, they
fail to extend these principles and concepts to include Jews and the State of Israel.
The new textbooks strive to present and create a strong sense of Palestinian, Arab
and Muslim identity. This dominates the treatment of history. Thus, efforts are made to
demonstrate a continuing Arab presence in Palestine. In the process, they tend to treat
history in a selective fashion. For example, though they do not deny a Jewish presence in
and connection to the Holy Land, they do not mention it. In addition, one notices an
effort to present ancient Canaanites and Jebusites as Arab or that Arabs are the
descendents of the two ancient civilizations. Other examples of the selective nature of
history include the brief and peripheral treatment of major historical events in the region
and the presentation of a narrow account of national and regional historical events.
Except for Jewish presence at the end of the 19th century and the first half of the
20th century, the textbooks do not treat Jewish history in any serious manner. However, it
is worth noting in this context that the history introduced in the 4th and 9th grades is
mostly the modern and contemporary Arab history which precludes any opportunity to
address such issues.
The new textbooks are also generally conceived within an Islamic framework.
Christian, and to a larger extent, Jewish traditions and viewpoints are ignored, especially
in historical and cultural contexts. In instances that have to do with Muslim-Jewish and
Muslim-Christian relations in historical contexts, the textbooks clearly take the point of
view of the Islamic tradition.
Also, and in the process of talking about holy sites in the Holy Land, the
textbooks fail to mention or include Jewish holy sites in Jerusalem and the rest of
historical Palestine. References, however, are made to sites holy in the Jewish tradition
but without making the connection clear or highlighting their significance to the
followers of the Jewish faith.
Concepts that relate to historical and political Palestine, the “homeland,”
“liberation of the homeland,” “the entire national soil,” among others, are not clearly
presented. Although these concepts run across the curriculum, no attempt is made to
clarify them in a way that dispels any suggestion of an attempt to preach a political
philosophy of “greater Palestine.” The use of ambiguous terminology, although with less
frequency than observed in earlier generations of textbooks (produced in 1994 and
between the years 2000-2003), is still observed in the recently published textbooks.
Along the same lines, the new textbooks continue the practice of presenting, as
Palestinian, cities, sites, and geographic regions inside the State of Israel alongside cities
and sites in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Again, and in spite of the fact that the
prefaces in the textbooks specifically point to the “two wings of the homeland” (the West
Bank and the Gaza strip), no attempt is made to make this pronouncement clear in the
body of the textbooks.
The name “Israel” does not appear on any of the maps included in the textbooks.
The territory of “the State of Israel” is shown on the maps without any label. The name
“Palestine” appears on some of the extended maps (e.g., maps of the region, greater
Middle East, the Arab world, the world). When a map representing the entire “historical
Palestine” is introduced, no labels are affixed. In almost all the maps, the administrative
areas of the Palestinian authority are contoured (again without labels). Conspicuously
absent are political maps that reflect the geographic and political realities of post-1947
partition and post- 1967 War.
From a pedagogic standpoint, one notices that history teaching is mostly limited
to transmission of information and to presenting a narrow perspective of historical events.
No serious attempts are made to present history as “investigation” and to expose students
to multiple perspectives that present different historical narratives.
