In the wake of the signing of the Oslo peace agreement in 1993, the
trend towards peace education assumed an important proportion
within the educational process in Palestine and Israel. The
rationale was that, to be sustainable, peace, reconciliation and
tolerance must permeate society as a whole, through various means
and on every level, especially in the classroom.
Basically, the past eight years or so have witnessed the creation
of many forums aimed at exchanging ideas on the ways and means of
bringing reconciliation and peace to the region through educational
projects. These forums sought to create a vehicle through which
ordinary Palestinians and Israelis learn about each other,
communicate with one another, bridge the gaps of ignorance and
fear, and work for the restoration of peace, reintegration,
reconstruction and social solidarity with their communities and the
region.
In terms of the content of peace education programs, several themes
and topics were introduced and discussed under the broad rubrics of
Civic Education for Peace, Democracy, Human Rights and Development,
and Citizenship Education. This was the case because the concepts
are both closely related and highly complementary. Programs
addressing topics as broad as civics or human rights, or as narrow
as tolerance and conflict resolution, were also organized in
informal educational settings, as well as within the school
setting.
The mechanisms for implementing the concepts were also different
and varied. In most cases, they were in the form of enriching
materials incorporated as sub-themes into certain subjects like
citizenship education, history, languages, and human rights. In a
few cases they were organized in a separate course (adult and
continuing education courses). Peace, democratic and human-rights
principles and lessons were also easily infused into most subject
areas, including the natural sciences, the humanities and the
social sciences.
Current Trends
Overall, and until the outbreak of the al-Aqsa Intifada (September
28, 2000), the findings of a brief survey pointed to a dynamic and
growing field of practice in education for peace and international
understanding throughout the region. The survey was conducted
informally by this writer using the Internet, individuals, NGOs,
and other resources, like personal contacts and experiential
knowledge gained over years of work in the field.
Much of this work was carried out within the framework of joint
Israeli-Palestinian projects (mostly in private schools in the
Ramallah, Jerusalem, and Bethlehem districts, and a limited number
of public and private schools in the northern districts of Jenin
and Tulkarem). Participation on the Israeli side included public
and private schools (both secular and religious), from all over
Israel, but with a focus on the central and northern regions (both
Jewish and Arab communities).
Work within these projects had focused on introducing and enhancing
factual knowledge of the principles of democracy, human rights and
civil society, in addition to the skills of cooperative work, peer
mediation, constructive conflict resolution, and interpersonal and
social communication skills. Knowledge and skills were introduced
within the framework of joint teacher and student encounters and
workshops and via twin-school plans (sister schools in Israel and
the Palestinian National Authority [PNA]).
This lively level of activity in both the formal and non-formal
education sectors, and this degree of involvement of both the
so-called public and private realms, was seen by many as one of the
key hopes for the penetration and impact of education for peace and
international understanding.
During the last several months, however, many of the building
blocks in several areas were fractured, if not completely damaged.
The unfortunate current events and violence we have been witnessing
in the area over the last nine months have certainly marred the
relationship of trust and acceptance that was slowly, yet firmly,
being forged at both the official and grass-roots levels between
Palestinians and Israelis. Most joint educational projects aimed at
educating Palestinian and Israeli school-age children have either
been completely stopped or temporarily frozen or turned into
uni-national projects.
This fact brings us face to face with several difficult and
challenging questions: Can we still talk about peace education and
education for democracy and human rights? Can the existing low
profile, grass-roots-level programs be sustained? If so, how? Are
we in need of new perspectives that are compatible with the current
circumstances and state of affairs? How can we best demonstrate
commitment to peace education? Is it wise to import successful
programs from other regions in the world or should we be selective
and strategic in our approach? All these questions and others are
at the heart of the ongoing debate about the utility and
effectiveness of peace education programs.
Answering these questions entails the recognition that a rift has
indeed been created between Israelis and Arabs in the region, and
that major efforts need to be made to heal the mistrust and anxiety
that have developed during the past period.
Expectations and Realities
Until recently, individuals and groups alike talked about peace
education with confidence and optimism. But today, and given the
present state of affairs, it is legitimate to ask if we still could
talk about peace education. The answer is conditionally positive.
The changing political environment poses serious challenges to
peace education programs, which calls for both critical
self-examination and creativity in exploring new ways of working
with all stake-holders in the region.
In this respect, one has to accept the view of peace education as a
field that is inextricably linked to the other related fields of
civic education and education for democracy and human rights. Prior
to their dissemination and implementation at the bi- and
multinational levels, the principles and concepts that underlie
these fields, need, in essence, to be instilled and reinforced
uni-nationally. Thus, it is imperative that all nations involved in
the regional conflict pass laws and regulations that promote a
culture of peace. At the implementation level, this calls for
instituting a comprehensive course (incorporating the major
principles and themes in civic education and education for peace,
human rights and democracy) at both the school and university
levels.
New Perspectives
Alternative perspectives need to be introduced into the school
curriculum to more accurately portray the different ways in which
people view the world. There is increasing sensitivity to the
political implications of depicting one worldview at the expense of
others. Introducing programs and units on human rights, character
education, and multicultural issues is an important response to the
increasingly complex social environment in the region. It requires
vigilant public involvement.
The culture of peace comprises all the events, attitudes, and forms
of behavior that reflect respect for life, for the dignity and
diversity of human beings, for human rights on all levels, the
rejection of violence in all its forms, as well as the commitment
to the principles of freedom, justice, solidarity, tolerance,
multiculturalism, and understanding among peoples, groups and
individuals. Thus a link exists between a culture of peace and
human development.
This link is premised on the existence of peaceful relationships
between the two parties, or, at least, the absence of aggression
and violence. A first step in this direction would require work at
the uni-national level prior to the gradual resumption of
binational projects. Some educators argue that, unless the peace
process is back on track, any talk about the resumption of joint
projects would be unrealistic. They further state that, under the
present conditions of a stagnant peace process, even uni-national
endeavors would be futile. Many even question the utility of
unilateral education for peace programs, given the adverse
political ambience, especially the inequalities that exist between
the Israeli and Palestinian sides, and the persisting negative
stereotyping, incitement, and verbal and physical violence. These
educators question whether the conquered can pursue unilateral
peace education projects, which they contend would only widen the
chasm that already exists, and may fly in the face of any form of
empathy on the part of the other side. Others argue that, under the
present adverse circumstances, the more compelling issue of
security must take precedence. For them, any talk about peace
education is a luxury the peoples of the region cannot
afford.
Conclusion
Beyond all theoretical conceptualization and rhetoric, a basic
question remains: can we get beyond the present situation and
embark anew on a fresh path of reconciliation?
The answer to this question is not an easy one, but remains in the
realm of the possible. It can be achieved once some prerequisite
conditions are met, chief among which relate to the acknowledgment
of the argument that peace education projects (whether unilateral
or joint) cannot be sustained in adverse circumstances. A peace
process in abeyance is certainly not conducive to the resumption of
joint projects. Thus, sincere local, regional and international
efforts should be made to create a peaceful environment conducive
to the resumption of peace talks. Additionally, peace education,
like the peace process itself, should not be viewed as a one-time
event; rather, it should be taken as an ongoing process of
broadening children's horizons in terms of knowledge, beliefs,
attitudes and values. And, finally, it is important to come to
terms with the fact that the process of healing is a long one,
demanding great patience. Within this context, peace education
should be viewed as a credible long-term strategy aimed at
long-range targets.