Palestinian Textbooks: Analysis of International Assessments and Educational Narratives
The content of school textbooks in the Israel-Palestine conflict has long been a subject of intense international scrutiny. Since 1994, the Palestinian Authority (PA) has worked to replace older educational materials, sparking a decades-long debate among academics, governments, and NGOs regarding whether these curricula promote peace or incite hatred. These assessments often reveal a complex tension between national identity and the portrayal of the "other."
Key Facts
- Diverse Findings: International reports range from describing the curriculum as "peaceful" to citing instances of bias, inaccuracy, and the omission of Israel from maps.
- Mutual Narratives: Comprehensive studies suggest both Israeli and Palestinian textbooks often present exclusive national narratives that ignore the other side's suffering.
- Incitement Levels: Some large-scale studies found explicit dehumanizing incitement to be "extremely rare," while other targeted reports highlight the glorification of resistance and martyrdom.
- Cartographic Disputes: A recurring point of contention is the use of maps that omit the State of Israel or the "Green Line" (the 1967 border).
Early International Assessments (2000–2004)
In the early 2000s, several scholars and bodies examined the transition to the Palestinian Authority's newer textbooks. Nathan Brown, a Professor of Political Science at George Washington University, concluded in 2001 that while the curriculum was highly nationalistic, it did not incite hatred, violence, or anti-Semitism, arguing that charges against the books were often exaggerated.
Similarly, in 2001, Chris Patten of the European Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee denied allegations that the European Union had funded textbooks containing anti-Semitic arguments, calling such claims a "total fabrication."
Comparative Studies on National Narratives
Between 2002 and 2004, researchers Ruth Firer and Sami Adwan compared Israeli and Palestinian texts. They found that Palestinian books presented Israelis as occupiers, detailing the demolition of homes and land confiscation. Conversely, they noted that Israeli textbooks generally avoided national-political debates. Their 2004 conclusion was that neither side's books told the story from the other's viewpoint, with both sides counting only their own victims.
Another significant review was conducted by the Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information (IPCRI), commissioned by the U.S. government. Their 2003 report described the overall orientation as peaceful. However, a 2004 follow-up noted that some passages were offensive and that maps frequently omitted the name "Israel" within its pre-1967 borders.
Comprehensive Studies and Scientific Reviews (2009–2013)
A major three-year study conducted between 2009 and 2012 examined over 9,900 pages of text. The researchers found that demonization of the other was "extremely rare," discovering only six instances of such content in Palestinian texts, none of which were general dehumanizing characterizations of Jews or Israelis.
The CRIHL Study (2013)
The Council for Religious Institutions in the Holy Land (CRIHL), supervised by Prof. Bruce Wexler of Yale University, launched an in-depth survey titled "Victims of Our Own Narratives?" This study analyzed hundreds of books from both educational systems. The findings indicated that while most books were factually accurate, they failed to represent the other side positively.
| Metric | Israeli State Books | Haredi (Ultra-Orthodox) Books | Palestinian Books |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neutral Depictions | 40% | Low | 15% |
| Positive Depictions | 11% | Very Low | 1% |
| Negative/Very Negative | 49% | 73% | 84% |
| Depicted as "Enemy" | 75% | High | 81% |
The study noted that while Israeli state books were more likely to portray Palestinians positively, both Palestinian and Haredi schools used texts that were overwhelmingly negative. It also highlighted a significant disparity in mapping: only 4% of Palestinian maps labeled the area west of the Green Line as "Israel," while 76% of Israeli maps failed to distinguish Palestine, implying the areas were part of Israel.
Recent Reports and Institutional Criticisms (2019–2021)
More recent evaluations have returned to concerns over bias. In 2019, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) urged the Palestinian Authority to ensure curricula did not contain offensive images or comments.
A 2021 report by the EU-commissioned Georg Eckert Institute found that some Palestinian textbooks portrayed attacks against Israeli civilians in the 1970s as legitimate resistance. The report also noted the continued absence of Israel and Jewish-founded cities like Tel Aviv from maps, and the use of the term "Zionist occupation" instead of "Israel."
Perspectives from Israel-Affiliated Organizations
Organizations such as Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) and the Institute for Monitoring Peace and Cultural Tolerance in School Education (IMPACT-SE) have been more critical. A 2007 PMW report claimed 12th-grade textbooks presented a world without Israel, a finding supported by then-Senator Hillary Clinton, who described the content as the "glorification of death and violence." However, scholars like Nathan Brown have disputed the methodology of IMPACT-SE, arguing their reports read like a "prosecuting attorney" seeking a conviction rather than a balanced academic study.
Frequently Asked Questions
Do Palestinian textbooks incite violence?
Findings vary by study. Some international academic reviews, such as the 2009-2012 study and the IPCRI 2003 report, found that explicit incitement to violence is rare. However, other reports, including those from the Georg Eckert Institute and PMW, argue that the glorification of "martyrs" and the portrayal of attacks as legitimate resistance constitute a form of incitement.
How are maps handled in these textbooks?
Maps are a primary point of contention. Many Palestinian textbooks omit the name "Israel" or the Green Line, while many Israeli textbooks omit the labeling of Palestinian areas, effectively presenting the entire region as part of Israel.
Is there a bias in Israeli textbooks as well?
Yes. The CRIHL study found that a significant percentage of Israeli state and Haredi textbooks portray Palestinians negatively. Haredi textbooks, in particular, were found to have very high rates of negative depictions of the "other."
What is the "Green Line" mentioned in the reports?
The Green Line refers to the 1949 Armistice border, which served as the de facto border of Israel until the 1967 Six-Day War. Its inclusion or omission in textbooks is often used as a measure of political recognition of the State of Israel.
How have the Palestinian and Israeli governments reacted to these studies?
The Palestinian Authority has generally welcomed studies that find a lack of blatant incitement, with leaders like Salam Fayyad suggesting the results be used to develop curricula based on coexistence. The Israeli government has frequently rejected these same studies as biased, unprofessional, and lacking objectivity.