Download - Democracy, The Jewish-Arab Cleavage and tolerance education in Israel

International Journal of Intercultural Relations

26 (2002) 215–232

Democracy, The Jewish-Arab Cleavageand tolerance education in Israel

Dan Soena,b,*aDepartment of Behavioral Sciences; Department of Sociology and Anthropology Kibbutzim School of

Education, Judea and Samaria College, 5 Gazit Street, Ne’oth-Afeka, 69 417, Tel-Aviv, Israelb Department of Social Sciences, Kibbutzim School of Education, Judea and Samaria College, 5 Gazit Street,

Ne’oth-Afeka, 69 417, Tel-Aviv, Israel

Abstract

The starting point of the Paper is the fact that Israel is a bi-national, multi-cultural and

multi-ethnic society, with Jews constituting in 2000 something around 79% of the population

and the Arabs about 20%. It goes on to explain that the cleavage between these two sectors is

both political as well as social and cultural. This fact has severe repercussions in as much as the

Israeli collective identity is concerned.

And yet, the dominant Jewish majority has committed itself since the Proclamation of

Independence in May 1948 to DEMOCRACY, i.e. to equality for all the segments of the

population. The Jewish majority also pledged to safeguard the minority’s rights.

The Paper analyzes the negative stereotypes and negative attitudes prevailing among the

Jewish component of the population against the Arab minority group.

It moves on to evaluate how well the system of formal education has managed to tackle the

problem of innate intolerance typical of the majority group in its relations with the minority

group. It draws on a content’s analysis of a sample of primers and readers widely used in the

primary education system throughout Israel in the 1990s.

It reaches the unhappy conclusion that these primers and readers fail in their task as vehicles

for inculcating ethnic tolerance, understanding and mutual respect. It reaches the conclusion

that the ministry of education has missed the opportunity to try and foster at least a common

CIVIL identity, uniting Jews and Arabs living side by side in Israel. r 2002 Elsevier Science

Ltd. All rights reserved.

*Tel.: +972-3-6-473-432; fax: +972-3-6-473-432.

E-mail address: [email protected] (D. Soen).

0147-1767/02/$ - see front matter r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

PII: S 0 1 4 7 - 1 7 6 7 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 4 9 - 9

‘‘We do a lot- perhaps too muchFto prepare our students and to train them fortomorrow, which might be a time of war. We do hardly anything, and certainlynot enough, in order to prepare the students and to train them for that sametomorrow which might bring Peace, at least in our regionFfor which we mustbear direct responsibility.’’ (Simon, 1983).

1. IsraelFa multi-cleavage society

Israel celebrated its fiftieth anniversary in 1998. A year earlier, in 1997 Jewscelebrated the centennial anniversary of the 1st Zionist Congress, convened in Basel,Switzerland. In the wake of that Congress Dr. Herzl, the founder and President ofthe Zionist Organization wrote in his diary the celebrated and prophetic sentence,‘‘In Basel I founded the Jewish State’’ (Herzl, 1960/61).

Modern immigration of Jews into the territories nowadays constituting Israelstarted in 1881 in a migration-wave lasting until 1903 and termed ‘‘the 1st Aliyah’’.

From a humble beginning of 25,000–35,000 immigrants who entered this countryat that time (out of whom 40–50% departed or emigrated again according to variousestimates) the State of Israel reached a stage in which, in 1996 it embraced 35.1% ofall the Jewish population of the world (della Pergola, 1998, p. 51). Tracing thegrowth of the Jewish population residing in the territory first under Othman rule,later under British Mandate and finally as an independent sovereign entity one isconfronted with a very unusual picture: in 1800 the number of Jewish residents inPalestine stood at 6700 (Gorny, 1985, p. 15). In the middle of the 19th Century thenumber almost doubled and stood at 12,000 (Rahat, 1983, p. 29). On the eve ofWorld War I the number doubled once again and reached about 24,000 (Gorny,1985, p. 15). At the end of 2000, a hundred and twenty years after the first modernmigratory wave to the country, the Jewish population reached the 4,952,200 mark(CBS, 2001)Fa 206-fold growth!

From this point of view there is absolutely no doubt that Israel could be termed amajor success story. And yet, one should bear in mind that Israel is also defined bysocial scientists as a multi-problem society. In fact, as succinctly put by Prof.Michael Weltzer (Makowski, 1999), ‘‘This is a society which is segmented in moreaspects and deeper ways than any other society I know of in the Western worldy’’

To be sure, the problems are judged to be so grave that they are termed cleavages.Some discern seven basic cleavages (Neuberger, 2000). One is between the left andright in the socio-economic sense. The next is between the so-called political dovesand hawks. The third is between the secular and religious segments of society. Thefourth is between the Ashkenazi (of European descent) and the Oriental (of Middle-Eastern or North-African descent). The fifth is between Zionists and non- or anti-Zionists (the latter found mainly among ultra-orthodox religious sects). The sixth isbetween ‘‘Olim’’ (new immigrants) and ‘‘vatikim’’ (established citizens). The seventhis the Jewish-Arab/Palestinian cleavage, which refers to the rift between the Jewishand Arab citizens of Israel.

D. Soen / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 26 (2002) 215–232216

This latter cleavage is the most crucial, since it is characterized by the clearestdiagnostic dichotomy, namely each of the two national components of the Israelisociety clearly and objectively belongs to one of the two. The distinction is definite,either I am Jewish or I am Arab. There is no place here for a graduated diagnosis of‘‘being more or less’’ or ‘‘don’t really belong’’. That in spite of the fact that the Israeligovernment treated the Israeli Arabs as religious sects or confessions rather than anational minority as part of its policy of control and contain or divide and rule(Zeedani, 2000).

What is more, this cleavage is the most loaded from a sentimental point of view;the emotional assertion is one of the strongest indicators for the dimension of thesocial cleavage (Kerlinger, 1984).

2. IsraelFa bi-national society

Despite its many successes, Israel 53 years after gaining independence remains aJewish beachhead in the Middle East. Three-fourths of Israel’s infrastructure andJewish population lie along the 75 miles coastal belt from Haifa to TEL-Aviv and 35miles West to East stretch from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem. It is worth noting that theJewish heartland rarely exceeds nine miles in width (Rozenman, 2001).

As the State of Israel was proclaimed its Jewish population numbered 649,600(Schmelz, 1976, p. 1). In the first population census carried out in Israel in 1948 notlong after the proclamation of independence, the Arab population numbered only69,000 (Lustick, 1985, p. 62). It very quickly grew to 150,000 as the Israeligovernment allowed the return of many refugees.

As a result of Jewish immigration and Arab emigration during the first five yearsof Israel’s founding Jews constituted roughly 87 percent of Israel’s populationbetween 1953 and 1967. Then the consistently much higher Israeli-Arab fertility ratesbegan to close the gap. At the end of 1998 79.2% of the country’s population wasJewish; 20.8% was not (CBD, 2000, Table 2).

In addition to the disparity in birth rates the Israeli Arabs are much younger as agroup than Israeli Jews. No wonder then that according to the CBD’s forecast about23% of the Israeli population in 2020 will be Arab (Basok, 1999).

Two conclusions of highest significance arise from these data. Firstly, Israel isalready a bi-national society, in which the size of the minority group is just over one-fifth of the population. Secondly, within one generation the minority group isexpected to reach the size of about one-quarter of the general population.

This pluralism merits a word of caution. One should be aware of the fact that acertain measure of ethnic pluralism is perceived as legitimate and even beneficial tosociety. Nevertheless, while under certain conditions ethnic pluralism contributes tothe existence and the development of society, exceeding a certain boundary may bedestructive (Ben-Sira, 1988, p. 1–2).

Since pluralism denotes diversities found in the study of religious, ethnic andnational groups, and since pluralism means in effect a state of affairs in which eachethnic group maintains in large measure, a separate way of life, with its own customs,

D. Soen / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 26 (2002) 215–232 217

its own supplementary schools, its special organizations and periodicals, and perhapseven its favored secondary languages (Glazer, 1957, p. 8) it is clear that whenever thecultural or national breach between the groups is very deep and whenever there is nowill of mutual accommodation overall social unity might be threatened. In fact,cultural diversity has even been described as ‘‘the enemy from within’’ (Cummins &Sayers, 1996, p. 4).

3. The national cleavageFsocio-political implications of ‘‘Jewish and Democratic’’

Israel, then, is effectively a bi-national state. Yet, Israel is at the same time also anation-state in the sense that it had not been created as a state for all its inhabitants.Rather, it had been created specifically in order to exercise the right of the Jewishpeople to self-determination (Gavison, 2000, p. 73).

As asserted by Klein, as France is French and Spain is Spanish so Israel is Jewish,and hence gives preference to Jews (Klein, 1987).

This view is taken one step further by A.B. Yehoshua, one of the Israeli leadingauthors and literary men, who addressed the Arab citizens of Israel as follows:

‘‘You, the Israeli Arab, or the Palestinian with an Israeli citizenship, you are aminority here, you will remain a minority, as the Basques are in Spain and theCorsicans in Francey but the state is a Jewish state as Spain is a Spanish state.’’

Yehoshua maintains that Israel is a Jewish state just like Denmark is a Danishstate and Norway is a Norwegian State (Yehoshua, 1985, p. 10).

Somewhere else he goes on to argue that the concept of Israeli, like the concept ofFrench refers both to citizenship and identity, yet the term ‘‘Israeli’’ for an Arab and‘‘French’’ for a Corsican are a matter of citizenship rather than identity (Yehoshua,1987).

In fact, Sammy Smooha coined in this context the term ethnic democracy in orderto characterize the special brand of Israeli democracy. It combines civic and politicalrights for the individual, as well as certain group rights to the Arab minority. At thesame time it legitimizes the rule of the Jewish majority group (Smooha, 1990, p. 139).

This has various implications.Most of the time, in an ethnic state, the state’s name, dominant culture and

symbols are associated with one ethnic group, and not with the minority’scommunity. Also, in an ethnic state, access to power, resources, governance anddecision-making is limited to the dominant ethnic group and not to the state’scitizens.

In a nation state with a full-fledged democratic system, the state’s goals andidentity derive from all its citizens, and not from a specific ethnic or national group.Moreover, it is citizenship that counts and not what ethnic or national grouping onebelongs to. Citizenship defines one’s rights as citizen within that state. The problemwith ethnic states is the clash between the exclusivity of a particular ethnic group andthe quest for equality of the other weaker ethnic group (or groups). This is bound tocause conflicts if the issues are not dealt with and worked out to ease the tension(Khalifa, 2001).


In this respect it should perhaps be borne in mind that although the relationshipbetween Israel and the Arab citizens is influenced by other determinants, such as theArab citizens being part of the Palestinian people and the evolution of the Arab–Israeli conflict, the state’s constitutional ethnic exclusivity is taken to be the mostimportant factor in delineating the contours of the relationship between the state andits Arab minority (Rouhana, 1998).

There is a consensus among a large number of social scientists that the Jewish-ethnic component in the Israeli political culture has been on the ascent since 1967,while the democratic-universal component has been on the retreat all this time(Cohen, 1989; Kimmerling, 1985; Medding, 1990, p. 233).

In fact, it has been suggested that the Israeli political culture is a combination ofthree constitutional principals: republicanism, liberalism and ethno-nationalism. Peledis of the opinion that the republican principle is dominant in Israel, incorporatingboth liberal and ethno-nationalistic components. This leads to the conclusion thatIsraeli democracy is a republican democracy, entailing two sorts of citizenshipFarepublican citizenship for the Jews; liberal citizenship for the Arabs (Peled, 2000, pp.215–216). Officially, Jews and Arabs have equal civil rights; yet, effectively only Jews

may fully exercise these civil rights. The Arabs are 2nd class citizens (Peled, 2000, pp.215–216).

The fact that Israel is by definition both Jewish and democratic is liable to entail aninferior status for the Arabs unless arrangements are made to safeguard theminority’s rights (Gavison, 2000, p. 75).

Safeguarding the minority rights is of utmost importance in the Israeli politicalclimate, since a sense of inferiority, injustice and civil discrimination among theIsraeli Arab population is liable to undermine the collective social identity, which is aprerequisite for a healthy, viable and functional society.

In the long run identity is central to the existence of society. As asserted by Ben-Sira, it is possible to use people’s identification with their society as an indicatorreflecting the importance of society for them (Ben-Sira, 1979). One of thefoundations of a healthy society, therefore, is one that inculcates its people with ahigh coefficient of identification (Parsons & Smelser, 1965).

Looking at it from the social point of view, the Jewish majority group shouldrecognize it has a great interest in imbuing the Israeli Arabs with Israeli identity. Inthe long run this is the only way to ensure co-existence beneficial to both groups.This is also the only way to bridge the existing national cleavage between the twogroups.

4. The national cleavageFnegative stereotypes and group attitudes

Despite the obvious national interest in fostering mutual respect and a sense ofpartnership and belonging, the social reality reflects negative stereotypes prevalentamong the Jewish majority.

These negative stereotypes have been deeply rooted for years. Thus, a surveycommissioned in 1980 by the Van Leer Institute in Jerusalem regarding the attitudes


of the Jews toward the Arabs indicated that 36% of the respondents held the opinionthat the Arabs were dirty; 33% were of the opinion that life was of insignificant valueto the Arabs; and 53% believed that most Israeli Arabs were glad when there was aterrorist attack on the country (Hareven, 1981, p. 7).

Another survey carried out by Sammy Smooha in 1988 confirmed these negativeattitudes. Those surveyed regarded the Arabs as an untrustworthy individuals,second-class citizens and aliens, not really wanted in the Jewish State (Smooha, 1993,p. 190). In the same survey 74.8% stated categorically that they were not willing towork under an Arab supervisor (Smooha, 1993, p. 190). On the whole, the expressedattitudes were strongly, unabashedly anti-Arab. Thus 73.8% of the respondentsstated that they preferred Jews to Arabs in the country; 42.8% of those surveyed heldthe opinion that Arabs should not be allowed to vote in the elections (sic!).Moreover, 39.9% went one step further, stating that Israel should seek all ways andmeans to encourage its Arab citizens to leave the country ! A mere 23.2% objected tothis ‘‘transfer’’ suggestion (Smooha, 1993, p. 190).

No wonder that these majority group attitudes are reciprocated by the minoritygroup. A sample survey carried out in 1985 among the Arab population in Israelindicated that 70% of the respondents perceived Zionism as a racist movement.What is more, 67% stated that they did not believe an Arab could become an equalcitizen in the Jewish-Zionist state (Smooha, 1993, p. 187).

What was true in the 1980s proved to be true also in the 1990s. A surveycommissioned by the Ministry of Education and Culture covered a sample of 3700high-school students from all over the country, both Jews and Arabs.

The most shocking fact emerging from that survey was that 37% of the Jewishyoungsters stated bluntly that they hated Arabs. Two-thirds (sic!) of the Jewishstudents maintained that ‘‘Arabs should not be allowed to have full and equalrights’’ (Ilan, 1996). Only 43% of the Jewish high-school students supported Arabservice in the Israel Defence Forces (a necessary prerequisite to social equality inIsrael). On the other hand, 50% of the Arab students professed willingness to servein the army. Moreover, 75% of the Arab students indicated readiness to serve in acivil National Service should they be called upon to do so instead of serving in thearmy (Ilan, 1996).

Another discriminatory attitude emerged from a very recent survey conductedamong Jewish youth aged 13–18 early in 2000 (Trabalsi-Hadad, 2000). Of thosesurveyed 37% were in favor of limiting the civil rights of the Israeli Arabs.

The gravity of the situation is reflected in fact in all the surveys carried out amongthe Jewish population. Even when the Israeli Arabs were under the same threat astheir Jewish compatriots, during the Gulf War, attitudes were not different. In asampling of 418 Jews taken at that time only 50% upheld the Israeli Arabs’ right tovote in the elections to the Israeli Knesset (parliament). Again, 36% held the viewthat Israeli Arabs should be encouraged to leave the country (Peres & Ya’ar-Yuchtman, 1998, p. 183).

One more survey should perhaps be mentioned here, because the picture it depictsis even more worrying than what has been cited so far. It was carried out among1,488 Jewish high-school students, 72% of whom stated categorically that equal


representation for the Israeli Arabs endangers the security of the state (Keren,Zelikovitz, & Auron, 1997, p. 67). 63% of those surveyed voiced the opinion thatequal representation for the Arabs is liable to harm the Jewish character of thecountry (Keren, Zelikovitz, & Auron, 1997, p. 67). And 30% of the students had nocompunction whatsoever to profess racial prejudice (Nili Keren et al., p. 29).

The democratic commitment to equality and non-discrimination, which underlinesthe Declaration of Independence undersigned by all the members of the ProvisionalNational Council at the eve of the declaration of independence is put to shame by allthese findings.

Moreover, these findings have direct bearing on the Israeli social balance andharmony, what with the fact that even perceived violation of equality can lead toconflict between ethnic groups (Lijphart, 1977).

In this context Rouhana’s reference to the theoretical foundations of the basichuman needs theory is worthy of serious consideration. As argued by this theory(Burton, 1990) if the need for equality, equity and identity is not fulfilled, thequestion becomes not whether a crisis will emerge, but rather under what political

circumstances will it emerge (Rouhana, 1998).

5. The education system as a socialization and potential multiculturalism agent

This is where the formal education system as a major socialization agent shouldstep in.

Intergroup relations are governed by cognitive processes, personality develop-ment, socio-cultural influences and conflicts between groups. The cognitive andemotional expressions of intergroup relations are stereotypes, prejudices anddiscrimination (Stephan, 1985).

The formal education system should have been a major instrument in the battleagainst ethnic-national bigotry and discrimination. It should have been utilized as ameans to rectify the situation by translating the proclaimed democratic character ofthe state into terms understood by the pupils and properly integrated into the schoolcurriculum.

In a bi-national society like Israel the formal education system is entrusted bydefinition with a formidable task. It is a task of expanding consensus within afracturedFsometimes antagonisticFsociety, by increasing cooperation and foster-ing understanding between the marginal sectors and the ruling sectors in society,while strengthening accord, identification and the honoring of values and norms thatemanate from them (Ichilov, 1993).

The role of the schooling system as a socialization agent is all the more importantwhen it is expected that at the same time as it imparts norms and culture it will alsogenerate the desired changes in everything relating to equality of rights andopportunities, thus facilitating the shrink in the gap between the ideologicalperceptions of democracyFwhich are supposed to be a candle to light the way forthe Israeli societyFand between the practices which, in effect, prevailFas reflectedby the above-mentioned surveys.


Even in the best cases there is an urgent need for democratic education.Democratic inclination is not an inborn quality, and therefore should not be takenfor granted. People need to be educated in order to recognize the need for theexistence of the principles of democracy and the accepted ‘‘rules of the game’’ in ademocratic country (Shochat, 1998, pp. 193–194). It goes without saying that theschooling system is one of the most effective tools of such political socializationprovided it is used properly (Hess & Torney, 1987).

In the Israeli case multiculturalism should be the natural banner as long as realequality is the target of the educational system, since one of the main principles ofmulticulturalism is the emphasis on diversity and the right to be different (McLaren,1995).

Nevertheless, one should be cognizant of the fact that disputes developed betweendifferent students of multiculturalism. The principle was criticized by bothconservatives and the radical left (Al-Haj, 2001).

All in all, Israel as a pluralistic society is increasingly facing the question of how toaddress the internal issue of national (also entailing social) inequalities while at thesame time it strives to build the critically needed shared civility among the majorityand minority groups.

Multiculturalism if properly implemented could be of great help. It did notmaterialize in the Israeli reality so far.

The accepted assumption is that between the years 1953 (when the NationalEducation Law was passed, declaring, among other things that ‘‘education in Israel

will strive for the creation of a society founded on freedom, equality, tolerance, mutual

help and love of mankind’’) and 1984Fdemocratic education was managed alongthree parallel routes (Doron Shohat, 1998, p. 194): (1) the study of civics in one formor another as part of the curriculum in high-schools; (2) educational experiencing ofdemocracy through so-called ‘‘educator’s hours’’, students’ councils, complementaryeducational activities, etc.; (3) extra-curricular education activities of variousorganizations.

In 1985 a Division for Democracy and Co-Existence was created within theMinistry of Education and Culture. It has conducted advanced courses for teachers(Nevo, 1989, pp. 86–113) and carried out a host of educational activities for students.It has also operated training centers for students and distributed relevant material.Among other things the Division also encouraged the activity of various voluntaryorganizations in this field. Last but not least, the Division also encouraged variousexclusive programs in the schools, and pushed for meetings and joint projects byJewish and Arab students.

All these activities covered only a small percentage of the students. Every now andagain suggestions were put forward to create integrative learning frameworks forJewish and Arab students. Thus, it was suggested by the Education Committee of theKnesset in 1980 to launch innovative, experimental integrative two-year studyprograms in foreign languages and science, both in the junior high schools as well asin the high schools. It came to nothing (Swirski, 1990, p. 63).

Even a cautious observer will be bound to admit that as a major socializationagent the schooling system did not achieve a great deal in this respect.


6. Primers and standard readers as a tool for imparting tolerance and doing away with

negative stereotypes

One of the missed opportunities within the values curriculum in the Israelieducation system is the host of primers, standard readers and textbooks printed forand used by the schooling system in Israel.

It has been taken for granted for a long time that children’s literatureoffers extensive opportunities for the teaching of moral behavior (Kim Suh& Traiger, 1999). The idea of using literary works in order to disseminatevalues derives from the fact that stories provide a common reference point andgood examples for children to learn. The importance of stories in transmitting thevalues and the wisdom of society has been identified for some time now: ‘‘This isbecause stories are one of the chief ways by which visions are conveyedy Just asvision and morality are intimately connected so are story and morality’’ (Kilpatrick,1992, p. 28).

Theoretically, the children’s illustrated book is taken as a vehicle for transmittingculture and social indications (Pitman, Eisikovits, & Dobbert, 1989). Both aspects ofthe bookFthe verbal and the visualFare taken as systems of signs, full of value-meaning. Already back in 1972 Weitzman and his associates insisted that evenpicture books for toddlers are an obvious tool for transmitting the social values(Weitzman, Eifler, Hokada, & Ross, 1972). Also cartoons were posited (Dines, 1995,p. 245) to be a ‘‘rich cultural source of material’’ because of the medium’s uniqueblend of caricature, humour and political commentary. According to White andFuentez (1997) comic cartoons reflect cultural beliefs and attitudes. Schmitt wrotethat these comic cartoons reveal ‘‘essential myths and ideologies of the cultures inwhich they are produced’’ (Schmitt, 1992, pp. 154–155). The use of comics as ateaching tool has been discussed for more than a half of the 20th century. Sones(1944) attributed the instructional appropriateness of comics to their use of pictures,their focus on people, their brevity, and their personalization.

In other words, the illustrated books should be seen as an agent of culturaltransmission. It is a double-faced mirror: on one hand it is used as a socializationagent; on the other it serves as a cultural indicator, reflecting the society in which itwas written.

Generally authors and poets reflect the widely held attitudes of society, its worldview, its value system, its national goals, although sometimes they make their workinto a tool for transmitting their own private values and world view. On the whole,literary works encompass contents created deliberately in order to impart socialvalues and messages; yet sometimes they serve as an unconscious reflection of theauthor’s inclinations or philosophy (Regev, 1985, p. 102).

As already mentioned, these things hold water when literature is discussedgenerally; they are also true when children’s literature is discussed specifically.Already in ancient Greece Plato pointed at the fact that children’s literature is usedto transmit the desired valuesFin fact it is intended to boost and strengthen them(Plato, 1977, pp. 114–115). O’Dell who studied Soviet literature from the sociologicalpoint of view, insisted that Plato’s approach was in fact adopted by various societies


which were as widely different as East and West (O’Dell, 1978). Weiberg and Blomon their part analyzed innumerable findings, the outcome of a multi-national, cross-cultural sample of toddlers’ books. They also maintain that the content of thesechildren’s stories faithfully reflect accepted social values and attitudes (Weiberg &Blom, 1970, pp. 109–122). No wonder, then, that it is possible to perceive children’sbooks as ‘‘social documents’’ reflecting the Zeitgeist and the accepted values (Regev,1985, p. 77).

This fact is confirmed and strengthened by sociologists, who decided to teach

sociology through literature (Williams & Prata Pereira, 2001).The idea of using literary works in the sociology classroom is not new. As early as

1972, Lewis Coser advocated the use of literature and poetry as a tool for teachingsociological theory and concepts inductively (Coser, 1972). Since that time severalsociologists reiterated time and again that literature provides valuable examples ofsociological concepts reflecting among other things society’s norms and values.Sullivan argues that the great advantage of using literature in sociology courses isthat it gives the students an opportunity to practice identifying sociological content in

new contexts (Sullivan, 1982).Goldman’s genetic structuralism posits that sociologists can use the content of

literature to gain insight into the structure and culture of the society in which it wasproduced (Goldman, 1970). Adams and Searle follow the same line and suggest thatliterature might be deconstructed in a manner that provides a window on differentaspects of a society in a particular time and place (Adams & Searle, 1986). Lamont(1994) argues that literature forces people to stop and analyze aspects of their livesand their society that they simply take for granted as the norm. This is why sociologyliterature is so beneficial in teaching sociology. Cosbey (1997) pointed out thatfictional novels are helpful to students by exposing them to alternative familystructures and values (Cosbey, 1997). Williams and Prata Pereira (2001) point thatpoems could also be used to teach sociology, since they give us a starting point fordiscussing the values adhered to by society.

Returning to the beneficial influence of literature on children in so far asenculturation and socialization are concerned Regev draws attention to the fact thatreading is known to have a considerable influence on shaping both the intellectual aswell as the emotional image of the young reader, and certainly his value-system also.It instills in the young reader a deeper insight into the world and the society whereinhe lives. It helps the child become a mature person, enhancing the formulation of hisattitudes in numerous areas relating to the individual, society, culture and the arts(Regev, 1977).

Having said all that, the simplest thing to do, therefore would be to takeadvantage of the compulsory readers and primers as a tool for transmittingdemocratic messages and values, facilitating tolerance and open-mindedness in so faras changing attitudes and negative stereotypes is concerned.

Readers, primers and compulsory textbooks are potentially a very effectivetool in the formative years of the child. It is possible to load them with literary piecesand visual aids that will facilitate transmission of the value-system advocated bysociety.


7. The missed opportunity of the readers and primers in the Israeli education system

Since study programs and readers and primers are considered a most reliablesource in unearthing the society’s socialization targets and its values, their content-analysis has greatly developed over the last twenty-five years (Furer, 1989).

We used that technique in an attempt to analyze the effectiveness of widely usedreaders in inculcating tolerance and fighting negative ethnic stereotypes. The studywas undertaken under my guidance and supervision in 1994 (Arazi, 1994).

Nine primary schools readers were chosen randomly from a list of readersrecommended to the schooling system by the Ministry of Education and Culture (Noreader is allowed in the Israeli schools unless it is recommended by the Ministry): New

Israel Readers, C, D, E, F; Ten Stops and One More, D, H; Meetings, C; I and We, A;Connections, D.

Three initial questions were posed as a basis for the content-analysis research:

1. What place is allocated to relationships between Jews and Arabs in the readers?What is the relative weight of this subject compared to other subjects touchedupon in the readers?

2. Is a positive emphasis placed in the readers on cooperation between Jews andArabs?

3. What is the Arab image as reflected from the material presented in the readers?

For the purpose of quantitative weighting of the literary piecesFboth stories andpoemsFincluded in the primers and readers two criteria were devised. Both weremeant to assist in locating the relevant material for the subject (Arazi, 1994, p. 20):

* Does the literary piece deal directly with Jewish-Arab relationship? Alternatively,is the background for the central theme of the literary piece a relationship betweenJews and Arabs?


* Is there any significant reference in the literary piece to the Arab as aperson?

These could be taken as basic criteria. The literary pieces located with thehelp of these criteria were then used as material for further examination andanalysis.

Jewish-Arab relationships were analyzed according to their character.

1. What level of relationship is dealt with in the story: the national level? theinterpersonal level? both?

2. What is the context of the relationships dealt with in the story: peace or war?3. What is the character of the relationships dealt with in the story: friendly? neutral?

hateful?4. Is there any cooperation between Jews and Arabs in the story?

As to the problem of the presentation and treatment of the Arab as a person, twobasic questions were posed here:

1. Is the Arab in the story mentioned by his name, or does he remain anonymous?2. In what depth is he described in the story?

The first question analyzed was the relative weight allocated to the Jewish-Arabproblem in the readers. This question dealt with the number of the relevant literarypieces rather than with their content.

At the end of a careful examination it was found that in all the nine readersthere were only twelve stories matching the target definition of the research.This from amongst 1,036 literary pieces included in the primers and readers.In all, these stories comprise a mere 1.16% of the entire literary body included in thebooks.

The indication is quite obvious: one of the focal issues facing the Israeli society isalmost nonexistent in the textbooks that could be used in order to improve things.The full details appear in Table 1.

Table 1

Reflection of the Jewish-Arab relations in Primers and Readers, 1994

The primer/reader No. of items dealing

with the subject

Total number of literary

items in the book

% of relevant literary

items out of total

New Israel Reader, C 2 154 1.3

New Israel Reader, F 1 121 0.82

New Israel Reader, D 1 125 0.8

New Israel Reader, E 1 143 0.7

Meetings, C 1 92 1.08

Connections, D 2 125 1.6

Ten stops and one more, E 2 102 1.96

Ten stops and one more, D 1 84 1.19

I and We, A 1 90 1.1

Source: Arazi, 1994, p. 21.


Is this missed opportunity the result of omission, or is it intended and deliberate?This poses an interesting question that definitely merits examination. Mostunfortunately it is not going to be dealt with here.

What should be reiterated at this point is that the insignificant weight allocated tothe crucial Jewish-Arab problem in the primers and readers reflects an unsatisfactoryattitude by the establishment. It is but one facet of how the educational system copesor rather does not cope with the subject.

Two other subjects were examined and analyzed, as already mentioned above: (1)The nature of Jewish-Arab relationships as revealed in the included literary pieces.(2) How is the Arab presented in these stories.

In order to reach quantified conclusions, each of these subjects was broken downinto several questions, each of which weighted separately. The maximum weightingpossible for each of the subjects was 100 (Arazi, 1994, p. 22).

The breakdown of the first subject into analysis parameters was as follows:

* Is the Jewish-Arab relationship treated as a central theme in the story?yyyyyyyyyyyy. 20%

* Is the context of the relationship a peaceful one? yyyyy.. 20%* Are the interpersonal and inter-ethnic relationships amicable? yyyyy 30%* Is there Arab–Jewish cooperation in the story?yyyyyyyyyyy 30%

Sum total: 100%The breakdown of the second subject into analysis parameters was as follows:

* Is the Arab given a name? yyyyyyyyyyyyy 20%* Is the overall characterization of the Arab a positive one? yyyyyyy 30%* Is the overall behavior of the Arab presented in a positive light?

yyyyyyyyyyyy. 10%* Are the descriptions of the Arab in the various episodes of the story imbued with

positive connotations? yy yyyyyyyyyy 20%* Is the role played by the Arab a positive one?yyyyyyyyyyy 20%

Sum total: 100%The emerging picture is unsettling: Insofar as Jewish-Arab relationships are

concerned the primers and readers cannot serve as role models. Only one storyreached the 100% mark and another two reached the 90% mark. At the other end ofthe spectrum one story received a 15% mark and yet another oneFa 40% mark.Most of the stories attained 70–75% marks that could be described as ‘‘fair’’ at best.The average mark was a miserable 59.2%!

Insofar as the presentation of the Arab is concerned the overall picture is onlyslightly betterFthe average mark being 67.75%. In a sense, it might be judged to beeven worse, since at one end of the spectrum two stories received a 0% mark, andanother oneFa 45% mark. On the other end of the scale, though, three storiesattained a 100% mark, and another oneFa 95% mark (see Table 2).


Far from playing a positive role by trying to rectify Jewish-Arab relationships andby alleviating negative ethnic-national stereotypes, a full third of the stories play intothe hands of bigotry and discrimination, and another 17% might be said to treat theissue in a very lukewarm way.


There is no way but to conclude that about half of the very small number of storiesthat do touch the Jewish-Arab issue fail to serve the message of democracy andequality.

8. Summary

A random sample of nine primers and readers serving the Jewish primary schoolsin Israel has been analyzed in order to find out whether the books are utilized as avehicle to truly inculcate the democratic principles of ethnic tolerance and equality.

The overall picture emerging as a result of the content-analysis of these books isnot a very happy one. It is a picture of a missed opportunity at best.

It is an unhappy picture since it leads one to the conclusion that the primers andreaders do not help the schooling system in fulfilling its task as a social tool, which is

meant to achieve collective goals about which there is a wide consensus (Swirski, 1990,p. 177).

It has emerged from the above analysis that tolerance, equality and alleviation ofnegative Arab stereotypes play a very insignificant role in the standard primers andreaders used by the schooling system. Moreover, some of the stories included in thesebooks facilitate negative stereotypes rather than fight them.

The collective identity upon which a stable and healthy society rests is based on aconsensus regarding the answer to the question ‘‘who are we’’. As some of themodern researchers dealing with the problem of national identity have asserted, thisis the identity acceptable to a large number of people, belonging to a real or virtualcollective. It is an identity defining both the boundaries of their collective as well asthe rules that exist within it (Schlesinger, 1993; Kimmerling & Dahlia Moore, 1997).Those dealing with collective identity usually agree on four components, without

Table 2

Marks attained by the analyzed stories, 1994 sample (%)

Story Jewish-Arab relationships Presentation of the Arab hero

Story No. 1 40 0

Story No. 2 15 45

Story No. 3 100 100

Story No. 4 65 67

Story No. 5 20 0

Story No. 6 90 100

Story No. 7 75 80

Story No. 8 70 88

Story No. 9 70 100

Story No. 10 75 63

Story No. 11 70 95

Story No. 12 90 75

Average: 59.2 67.75


which this identity does not exist. One of the components is the developmentprocedure of collective identity, which is expressed in inclusion strategies on the onehand, and exclusion strategies on the other (that is to say, who belongs and who does

not belong to the collective).Most unfortunately, the overall picture of current Jewish-Arab relationship is such

that even the chances of forging a civic collective identity are open to debate.The education system must do a lot more than it has done so far in order to be

able to claim with a clean conscience that it is doing all that it should be doing inorder to facilitate attainment of tolerance and equality as well as washing away thenegative stereotypes prevailing in the Jewish sector regarding the Arabs. All these areprerequisites for creating the necessary civic collective identity, which is a pre-condition for a harmonious multi-cultural society.

References

Adams, H., & Searle, L. (1986). Critical theory since 1965. Florida: University of Florida Press.

Al-Haj, M. (2001). Multiculturalism in deeply divided societies: The Israeli Case. Intercultural Journal of

Intercultural Relations, 2.

Arazi, N. (1994). The value of cooperation as reflected in Israeli primers and readers. A seminar paper

submitted in the Kibbutzim School of Education within the framework of a seminar conducted under

the tutorship of Prof. Dan Soen (Hebrew).

Basok, M. (1999). 6.169 Million inhabitants in Israel. Ha’aretz Daily, 9.11 (Hebrew).

Ben-Sira, Z. (1979). Toward a facet theory of sequential order of societal needs. Quality and Quantity, 13,

233–253.

Ben-Sira, Z. (1988). Alienated identification in the Jewish Israeli society. Magness Publishing House:

Jerusalem. (Hebrew)

Burton, J., (Ed.) (1990). Conflict: Human needs theory. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

CBS (Central Bureau of Statistics), 2001. Statistical Abstract of Israel 51, 2000. Jerusalem: Government’s

Printer.

Cohen, E. (1989). The changing legitimations of the State of Israel. Studies in Contemporary Jewry, 5, 148–

165.

Cosbey, J. (1997). Using contemporary fiction to teach family issues. Teaching Sociology, 25, 3.

Coser, L. (1972). Sociology through literature. Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Cummins, J., & Sayers, D. (1996). Multicultural education and technology: Promises and pitfalls.

Multicultural Education, 3(3), 4–10.

della Pergola, S. (1998). The Jewish world, state of the art. Panim Quarterly, 6.

Dines, G. (1995). Toward a critical sociological analysis of cartoons. Humor, 8(3), 237–255.

Furer, R. (1989). Agents of conclusion. Tel-Aviv: United Kibbutz Pub. (Hebrew).

Gavison, R. (2000). A Jewish and democratic state?. In G. Ruth, & D. Haker (Eds.), The Jewish-Arab rift

in Israel: A reader. Jerusalem: The Israel Democracy Institute.

Glazer, N. (1957). American Judaism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Goldman, L. (1970). The sociology of literature: Status and problems of method. In M. C. Albrecht, J. H.

Barnett, & M. Griff (Eds.), The sociology of art and literature (pp. 522–609). New York: Praeger.

Gorny, Y. (1985). The Arab question and the Jewish problem. Tel-Aviv: Am Oved Publishers (Hebrew).

Hareven, A. (1981). One out of every six Israelis: On relations between the Jewish majority and the Arab

minority in Israel. Jerusalem: The Van Lear Jerusalem Foundation.

Herzl, T. (1960/61). History, Vol. 2. Jerusalem: The Zionist Library (Hebrew).

Hess, R. D., & Torney, H. V. (1987). The development of political attitudes in children. Aldine: Chicago.

Ichilov, O. (1993). Civics education in a budding society. Tel-Aviv: Poalim Publishing House (Hebrew).


Ilan, S. (1996). A research commissioned by the Ministry of Education: Two thirds of the students object

to equal rights for Arabs. Ha’aretz Daily, 25.11 (Hebrew).

Keren, N., Zelikovitz, G., & Auron, Y. (1997). Antisemitism and racism. Tel-Aviv: The Hebrew University

and Kibbutzim School of Education (Hebrew).

Kerlinger, F.N. (1984). Liberalism and conservatism: The nature and structure of social attitudes.

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.

Khalifa, O. F. (2000). Arab political mobilization and Israeli responses. Arab Studies Quarterly, 23(1), 15–

36.

Kilpatrick, W. (1992). Why Johnny can’t tell right from wrong: Moral illiteracy and the case for character

education. New York: Simon and Shuster.

Kim Suh, B., & Traiger, J. (1999). Teaching values through elementary social studies and literature

curricula. Education, 119(4), 723–728.

Kimmerling, B. (1985). Between the primordial and civil definitions of collective identity: Eretz-Israel or

the state of Israel?. In C. Erik, et al. (Ed.), Comparative social dynamics. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Kimmerling, B., & Moore, D. (1997). Collective identity as agency and structuration of society: The Israeli

case. International Review of Sociology, 7(1), 25–49.

Klein, C. (1987). Israel as a Nation-State and the problem of the Arab minority: In search of a status. Tel-

Aviv: International Centre for Peace in the Middle East.

Lamont, A. (1994). Bird by bird: Some instructions on writing and life. New York: Pantheon.

Lijphart, A. (1977). Political theories and the explanation of ethnic conflict in the western world. In M.

Esman (Ed.), Ethnic conflict in the western world (pp. 46–64). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Lustick, I. (1985). Arabs in the Jewish stateFIsrael’s control of a national minority. Haifa: Mifras

Publishing House (Hebrew).

Makowski, D. (1999). The ten tribes are already here. Ha’aretz Daily, 30.4 (Hebrew).

McLaren, P. (1995). White terror and oppositional agency: Toward a critical multiculturalism. In S.

Christine, & P. McLaren (Eds.), Multicultural education, critical pedagogy and the politics of differences.

New York: State University of New York Press.

Medding, P. (1990). The founding of Israeli democracy 1948–1967. New York: Oxford University Press.

Neuberger, B. (2000). Social cleavages and political parties. In Israel: State, Society and Politics. Seminar

on Israel, 10–14 April, PASSIAFThe Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International

Affairs, Jerusalem.

Nevo, D. (1989). Useful evaluation. Tel-Aviv: Massada. (Hebrew).

O’dell, F. (1978). Socialization through children’s literature: The Soviet Example. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Parsons, T., & Smelser, N. S. (1965). Sociological theory and modern society. New York: The Free Press.

Peled, Y. (2000). Strategies in utopia: the Palestinians’ status in Israel. In Gavison, R., D. Haker (Eds.),

The Jewish-Arab rift in Israel: A Reader (pp. 213–244). Jerusalem: The Israel Democracy Institute

(Hebrew).

Peres, Y., & Ya’ar Yuchtman, E. (1998). Between consent and dissent: Democracy and peace in the Israeli

mind. Jerusalem: The Israel Democracy Institute (Hebrew).

Pitman, M. A., Eisikovits, R. A., & Lundy, D. M. (1989). Culture acquisition. Connecticut: Greenwood

Publishing Group.

Plato (1977). The republic. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Rahat, R. (1983). Social patterns in Israel-Unity and dissent trends, Vol. I. Tel-Aviv: The Open University

of Israel (Hebrew).

Regev, M. (1977). Children’s literature as a basis for molding man’s world-view. Reading Circles, 3 (Dec),

5–13 (Hebrew).

Regev, M. (1985). Along the way of children’s literature. Tel-Aviv: Poalim Pub. (Hebrew).

Rouhana, N. (1998). Israel and it’s Arab citizens: Predicaments in the relationship between ethnic states

and ethnonational minorites. Third World Quarterly, 19(2), 277–296.

Rozenman, E. (2001). Today’s Arab Israelis, tomorrow’s Israel. Policy Review, 106, 49–60.

Schlesinger, P. (1993). Wishful thinking, cultural politics, media and collective identities in Europe.

Journal of Communication, 43(2), 6–17.


Schmitt, R. (1992). Deconstructive comics. Journal of Popular Culture, 25, 4.

Shochat, D. (1998). Education and democracy. In Y. Kashti, M. Arieli, S. Shlaski (Eds.), Teaching and

educationFAn Israeli lexicon, (pp. 193–194). Tel-Aviv: Ramot Publishing House.

Schmelz, U. (1976). Society in IsraelFselected statistics. Jerusalem: CBS (Hebrew).

Simon, A. E. (1983). The right to educate, the obligation to educate. Tel-Aviv and Jerusalem: Sifriat Poalim

& The Hebrew University.

Smooha, S. (1990). Minority status in an ethnic democracy: The status of the Arab minority in Israel.

Ethnic and Racial Studies, 13, 389–413.

Smooha, S. (1993). Class, ethnic and national cleavages and democracy in Israel. In: Uri Ram (Ed.), Israeli

society: Critical perspectives. Tel-Aviv: Breirot Publishers (Hebrew).

Sones, W. (1944). The Comics and Instructional Method. Journal of Education Sociology, 18.

Stephan, W.G. (1985). Intergroup relations. In G. Lindzey, E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social

psychology, Vol. 2 (pp. 599-658). New York: Random House.

Sullivan, T. A. (1982). Introductory sociology through literature. Teaching Sociology, 10, 109–116.

Swirski, S. (1990). Education in Israel: Schooling for inequality. Tel-Aviv: Brerot.

Trabalsi-Hadad, T. (2000). More then a third of Israeli youth: Arab civic rights should be curtailed.

Yedi’oth Achronoth Daily, 18.4 (Hebrew).

Weiberg, J. C., & Blom, G. E. (1970). A cross-national study of attitude content in reading primers.

International Journal of Psychology, 5, 109–122.

Weitzman, L. J., Eifler, D., Hokada, E., & Ross, C. (1972). Sex-role socialization in picture books for

preschool children. The American Sociological Review, 77, 1125–1149.

White, S., & Fuentez, T. (1997). Analysis of black images in comic strips, 1915–1995. Newspaper Research

Journal, 18(1–2), 72–85.

Williams, M., & Pereira, A. P. (2001). Understanding sociology through poetry. Department of Sociology:

University of Minnesota.

Yehoshua, A. B. (1985). The mistake of the left: Yaron London interviews. Politika, 8–13 (Hebrew).

Yehoshua, A. B. (1987). I am an Israeli, Mifgash-Liqa, The Hebrew–Arabic Cultural Orum, 7–8, 88–93.

Zeedani, S. (2000). Palestinians in Israel: Integration, autonomy or secession. In Israel: State, society and

politics. PASSIA, Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs Seminar,

Jerusalem.


Download - Democracy, The Jewish-Arab Cleavage and tolerance education in Israel

Top Related