By Arie Kizel
Words create a reality and not just describe it. In some cases they
are the result of a theoretical conceptualization, sometimes they are
meticulously formulated by public relations agency and in other times they are
fixed in a talking sheet. And well, dear brothers and sisters we are rifted.
Prof. Sammy Samooha determined that there are five key rifts which
divide the Israeli society; and that the rift has become a significant
component in our identity.
In this article, I wish to point out the contradictions in the
teaching of civics, especially since we chose the rift as a point of origin for
depicting the Israeli reality (or shaping it). Later on I will link these
contradictions to the goals of the Israeli curriculum and would like to call
for a new thinking about the words we use in the curriculum, our classes and in
tests within the Israeli context – Jewish and Arab. After all, words are as
important as actions.
In his book The
Time of the ''Post'': Nationalism and the Politics of Knowledge in Israel professor
Uri Ram points to the development of the Israeli sociology from institutional
patterns that expressed the Zionist national perception to the critical pattern
which expressed the emergence of an anti-establishment protest up to the post–modernist
pattern, post-colonial and post-Marxist patterns since the 1990's.
The principal consolidator of the critical approach was the
sociologist – Professor Sammy Samooha from the University of
Haifa. Samooha who studied at the University of California during the heyday of
the new left chose to interpret the Israeli society within an approach which
was consolidating at that period under the title of 'pluralism' whose main
interest was post-colonial heterogeneous societies comprised from different
ethno-cultural units living together under the same state.
Samooha's approach was adopted by those designing different
curricula in Israel in the field of civics and was implemented as a theoretical
possibility in order to explain the existence of the state of Israel as a
Jewish country and as the Jewish People's state in which there are diverse minorities,
different communities and different histories.
The problem which I would like to point out here is that this
approach has significantly responsible for creating the perception of Israel as
a divided state, and fueled both Jews and Arabs – mainly radicals – to consider
themselves as fighting over the memory resources of this place as well as over
the right over this place.
I see this fight as natural and even democratic; choosing the rift
and the how it's viewed as the principal format of instruction and as a mirror
to the students displaying the reasoning for the country not being politically
nationally and otherwise unified – actually undermines the goals of the civics
curriculum.
Choosing to conceptualize the rift and signaling out its expressions
as the source of the Israeli's society disintegration, holds one of the
obstacles for fulfilling the notion of coexisting under the concept of a
nation-state for example.
As a nation-state such as Israel has always faced and will always
have to face minority's argument on it not being a democracy. Some of the minority's arguments against the
existence of a nation-state country rely on the fact that it is impossible to maintain
the idea of equality within a nation-state. It is a weighty argument that led
the state of Israel to find several justifications, under international law,
for the fulfillment of the Jewish people's right for self-determination.
Given, many of us – Jews, certainly – accept these arguments and
even hold on to them; there is now an extensive space – a living and breathing
one – in which it is necessary to function as Jews and Arabs in one state, and
one of them is the ability of joint inclusion, the ability to coexist as well
as existential challenges in all possible fields.
The joint inclusion of both populations – Jews and Arabs – should
not be a mere formality, it should be significant and daily; it comes forth
from every direction asking fundamental questions: how? In which ways? Under
which terminology? In which language? In which spaces?
These are existential questions for Jews as well as Arabs; this is
assuming that they are interested in having a Joint Israelism in which Jews are
not willing to renounce their right for self-determination and are not willing
to forgo Israel as being a Jewish national-state. And assuming the Arabs wish
and need to sustain a national identity which they are not asked to relinquish,
but one they must respect and to give them room for expression.
It is into this range of questions that the civics curriculum
penetrates. It forces this existence into an inherent contradiction:
On the one hand, at the beginning of every year the state is
presented as the realization of an ideal, as Jewish and democratic, as
expressing the fundamental right of the Jewish people for self-determination.
While on the other hand, along the year the disintegration of said
political unity is described – as an ideal and a reality, using the rift theory
which is a profound expression of breaking, cutting, friction and division.
And in that point during the year students ask themselves who is
responsible for the disintegration, for the division?
If integrity is presented as ideal, then the rift is presented as
its collapse. The rift has nothing positive, neither verbal nor essential. It
represents negativity. And throughout the teaching and learning processes
Jewish students get a message that might be very problematic: the state could
have been perfect (or nearly perfect) if there were no rifts.
The problem with this message (which of course is not overt) is
also on a democratic-universal level because it contains the element of
uniformity that given not legitimacy to pluralism. Also from a
concrete-particular level within the Israeli context: the one rifting is guilty of the rift since
he undermines perfection.
Given the students young age, and given they live in a loud society
that also has some racist lesions which become more severe, some of whom (and
maybe too many) come to the conclusion that the cause of the rift needs to be
uprooted.
As aforementioned, this was not Sammy Samooha's objective in
conceptualizing the rift; but in my preoccupied opinion, this is the result of
the wrong choice, to continue and describe the Israeli reality and its
potential in this way.
It is clear today that there are two major camps in Israel who make
immediate political gains from the description of a crisis and in my opinion
they even enjoy it: the radical extremists from both sides of the Israeli
society, the Jewish as well as the Arab. And both use the same prolonged,
political and daily description in order to fight with each other and not in
order to illustrate that we actually live here together.
One part, desiring to fulfil his desire to suffocate the minority,
to discriminate it and to exclude it; while the other part wishing to prove how
undemocratic the country is, how racist and apartheidist it is and how much it
needs to be changed; meaning, undermining its Jewishness. Once again, the
allied extremists make a collation move that has a shared narrative – negating
the mutual existence in this place.
The Israeli politicians, it must be said, play with the rift every
single day, especially the extremists. They use a terminology that exacerbates
the contradictions, deepens the hatred, is racist and seeks to persuade us of
one thing – togetherness is impossible.
Each side encourages its community to believe in this
impossibility, using all the media at hand. The image presented by the media is
of the members of the Israeli Knesset who perpetuate the separatism and
encourage pedagogy of mutual fear, suspicion and mistrusts. The Israeli
students are exposed to these voices and believe in the rift, after all, it is
right in front of them .Especially the believe that unfortunately it cannot be
mended, that there is no purpose in coexistence
and in its future potential.
I would try to sharpen this
point and clarify that the narrative negating the existence of the state of
Israel as a legitimate Jewish state, tarnishing it as an apartheid state, has
become, for over a decade, the central narrative amongst quite a few
Arab-Palestinian populations, who embraced the pan-Arabic narrative, created by
Azmi Bishara.
This discourse wishes to instill in the Arab citizens of Israel the
negative aspects of the country and chooses to ignore (sometimes intentionally)
the major advantages of Israel as a democratic state as well as it positive
undertakings. This discourse has become extremely predominant and choosing the
description of the rifts in our instruction of civics, evidently serves it.
How? It enables the Palestinian citizens of Israel to clearly show how Jews think
about them: as a problem, as dividing, as rifting.
It is today, in fact for a few years, an additional significant
factor, as fueling the Palestinization processes of Arabs in Israel and its
justifications which can be seen in the De-legitimation campaign carried out in
the Arab public in Israel against integration in some sort of national/civil
service that is meant to serve the Arab community.
On the other hand, on the
Jewish side – choosing the rift terminology serves the exact same purpose: the desire
of part of the Jews to instill a culture of concern, fear and mistrust towards
the Arab population; which is expressed in attempts of anti-democratic
legislation attempting to restrict minorities' freedom of expression and
association. Thus, a distorted use of the rift theory may lead to a dangerous conclusion
according to which the minority is an existential threat, a fifth column and
even a cancer in the nation's body.
I do not wish to argue here that teachers promote this discourse in
their classes. I know many of them make a balanced and correct use of the slit
theory, and supplement it with many elements about the possibility of
coexistence.
Within that context, where is the civics curriculum? I would like to argue that the goals of our
curriculum are phrased in a too neutral language in all matters related to the
coexistence of Jews and Arabs in the country.
The civics teaching supervision documents correctly determine that
"civic education is a necessary process in a democratic society, which
links citizenship and education is essential and ethical", it was argued
in these documents that "when you do not prepare a person for life in a
democratic society, there is a risk of alienation, indifference, egoism and
hostility towards the political establishment as well as opposing the
democratic ideas and values" (page 6).
In the goals for teaching-learning it is said that alongside the
recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, teacher will strive to "nurture a
shared civic Israeli identity alongside maintaining the unique national
identity of the diverse groups within the Israeli society" as well as
"recognizing pluralism and tolerance as the fundamental values of the
democratic society", "nurturing tolerance towards others, openness and
mutual respect for diverse individuals and groups, encouraging the discourse
between them and recognizing the importance of settling disputes peacefully. (Page
7).
Additionally, the book Being Citizens in Israel is presented
in the Ministry of Education's documents, as "not presenting one viewpoint,
and does not establish an unequivocal position regarding the proper or worthy
interpretation of events and situations; but rather the consideration in
displaying multiple positions in the book was for students to know and
understand that in the sociopolitical reality
may be, simultaneously, various aspects for the same phenomenon and
there are no absolute truths" (page 9).
The phrasings are so advanced; they seemingly contain an approach
of multiple narratives and truths, justification for pluralism and rejection of
dogmatism. However in my opinion the goals need to be phrased in a manner that
will confront head-on the challenge of Jews and Arab coexistence in the Jewish
state.
A thorough examination of the goals shows they are multiple and
inclusive, but also neutral. The principle of pluralism contains 7 goals some
of them significant such as "students will understand that the principle
of pluralism means recognizing the diversity of individuals and groups in the
country etc."
As to tolerance – 4 goals some of them very important of course,
such as "students will understand that tolerance stems from recognizing
human dignity as a value and in his right to be different from others."
In regards to consensus – 9 goals amongst them "students will
understand that a condition for living together in the country and for the
fulfilment of the principle of pluralism is a wide consensus among the
individuals and groups in society – among themselves on the rules of the game."
The goals are phrased in a generalist manner and refrain from
national or concrete affinity to the complex Israeli reality. The explanation
for this is clear – linking the goals regarding pluralism, tolerance and
consensus to the challenging political reality in Israel – could have made them
seemingly "political". However in my opinion the entire field of
civics is political, because it touches the daily life in Israel and this life
is political and not neutral.
The Brazilian pedagogue Paulo Freire who was exiled from his
homeland by the military regime and wrote his important book Pedagogy of the
oppressed claimed that the education system creates linguistic neutrality
using so called euphemism which actually perpetuates through the same
neutrality the reality and its status quo.
In my opinion, nowadays we need to work towards a new thinking
about the teaching of civics in Israel, especially with regards to the shared
lives of the citizens. We need to adopt a terminology which tears the rifts
apart, and to set forth – not just as an act of one brave teacher or another –
a terminology that will relate to the contribution of multiplicity, the
abundance in multiplicity (even the multiplicity of narratives), the possible
abundance in a shared life that consists of building and innovation of
institutes, means, originality and creativity.
We need to adopt pedagogy of sharing we can turn to the Jewish
philosopher, Emmanuel Levinas, who advocated discovering the other not as a
project but as an existential need, as responsibility. In this responsibility,
which is an expression of humanity, the other's face reach out to me, and in
them my, our and your humanity is embodies. Paraphrasing Levinas we can
substitute the rift for responsibility.
Responsibility not just for the shared life as a type of
coexistence which centers on tolerance (and teaches students that tolerance
comes from the word "suffering" to "suffer") but as
responsibility for the other and also for his possibility – Jew and Arab – to
be himself. In my opinion, it is not
just the responsibility of the Jews but also of Arabs. I do not accept the
position that it’s the majority's job, but also that of the minority.
The minority also needs to separate itself from pedagogy of fear,
mistrust, concern; it also needs to resuscitate the responsibility for what is
shared, and must reject the victim's narrative to which it was subjected and to
which it subjected itself, overzealously at times.
Adopting a civil terminology based on Freire's action of political
dialogue and also on living with a responsibility towards the other (because of
his otherness and not just as a minority and majority) could create a platform
for a more abundant coexistence.
One of the main problems of civics instruction in Israel, which is
so different from the instruction of civics in Germany for example, that it
draws too closely on political science and the need to provide ample space to
the formal aspects of the governmental structure in Israel, sometimes, at the
expense of issues related to the country's citizens. Therefore, this framework sharpens also the perception
of the rift. Nowadays it is possible to incorporate in the instruction of
civics the economic subject which has been excluded. Most official documents
refer to social and political indices, but there is an exclusion of economic
solidarity as a sphere which enables partnership and responsibility in the face
of poverty and discrimination and in favor of prosperity and success. The
economic arena, especially in the past years, has become a place where
collaborative coalitions can grow, benefiting all sectors of the Israeli
society.
To students who are learning to become civics teachers, who teach
the subject of the rift, I suggest the substitution of the rift factors with
the possibilities of partnership, the expressions of the rift with the
challenges of neighborliness, the history of the rift with the possible future
of shared living, not as a worn-out coexistence, but as the fulfilment of
humanity and responsibility towards a vibrant democracy in which multiplicity
is human diversity rather than fewer opportunities tribally or nationally
sponsored. I call upon a new way of thinking, and for the reliance on
interesting conceptualizations which provided to us today and in the past few
years by the academy; believing that civics lessons are still the most lively
and vibrant space to examine political issues, yet at the same time for
providing an optimistic horizon for creativity and originality, and not just
for historic or narrative fixation.
אין תגובות:
הוסף רשומת תגובה