Education in the Middle East and Politics of Peace
Daniel Downs
February 21, 2007
According to a recent Middle East Media Research Institute (Memri) article, journalists inspired a debate that arose at the last Saudi national bi-annual education conference. The debate was focused on whether school curricula promotes violent extremism by teaching jihad. Saudi critics, like Abd Al-Rahman Al-Habib suggested jihad should be part of military training rather than in general public education. Others disputed a claim that religious aspects of the curriculum leads to terrorism. Like Muhammad Al-Najimi, many others believe changing the curriculum would lead to efforts to change the Quran. That was implied in a 2002 Memri Special Report in which high ranking government officials defended the Shi’ra based education system. For example, Prince Naif Ibn Abd Al-Aziz, Minister of the Interior, claimed religious instruction did not need changing because it was fundamental to his nation’s values and identity. For the same reason, Saudi Defense Minister Prince Sultan Ibn Abd Al-'Aziz said it would never change.
Like Saudi curriculum, Palestinian education is also criticized for its teaching of jihad. It is well-documented that Palestinian children are trained to wage jihad against their Israeli enemy. In a recent Congressional Research Service report, a study found jihad, martyrdom, and other religious subjects included in Palestinian textbooks while themes on tolerance related lacked any connection to the Israel or the Jews. Textbooks alone do not teach kids what views are acceptable or desirable. Textbooks only support lesson plans of teachers. Contributing to every lesson are the beliefs, values, and attitudes of teachers toward each subject including the history of jihad. When those same views and attitudes are reinforced by media and at home, teachings of jihad and martyrdom become cultural mores to be emulated by children. This is what Justus Weiner and Noam Weissman documented in a recent article. In addition to showing the pervasiveness of anti-semiticism in Palestine, they also documented the number of students trained at United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) schools who have committed acts of terrorism against Israelis.
Even if the UNRWA is not directly responsible for their students’ violent acts, a serious problem remains unchanged. The unanimous opposition to the existence of the state of Israel in the Middle East has never been rescinded. That is still a policy goal of the League of Arab States, a policy established in 1948. It is also the steadfast position of Hamas. Because is has never been rescinded, all current member states are obligated to uphold it.
Maybe that was the real reason the Palestinian National Council (PNC) never rewrote its charter after voting to do so in 1996. The PNC agreed to uphold Yasser Arafat’s 1993 letter to Israel annulling all articles that denied Israel’s right to exist in accord with UN Security Council Resolutions. It was supposedly part of the agreement of the Madrid conference and one of the conditions of the Oslo Accords.
The same is true of the 2002 Arab League’s Peace Initiative. No statement in the initiative leads one to believe they have changed their position. They acknowledge their objectives can not be achieved by military means. They expect Israel to withdrawal to pre-1967 territories and acknowledge the right to a Palestinian state; but the initiative never explicitly states the right of Zion’s existence in the Middle East. Their comprehensive peace to end the conflict is based almost entirely on Israeli obligations. If Israel meets their conditions, then they will be willing to sign a peace treaty.
The problem with peace treaties is that they are frequently annulled by contrary actions. As when the Arabs claim the British reneged on their agreement concerning Palestine; and when Israelis acknowledge Palestinians failed to fulfill their obligations to Oslo. Therefore, no one can believe their outcome will be certain. That would explain the recent insistence by officials of Israel and the United States for explicit recognition of the Israel’s right to exist in the Middle East.
Shaykh Professor Abdul Hadi Palazzi says Muslims must accept the state of Israel. A few years ago he visited Israel. During his visit, he spoke on the right of the Jews to their ancient homeland and to Jerusalem. He said the Quran teaches the return of the Jews to their ancient homeland in the last days. Therefore, Muslims must accept the state of Israel. He also explained why Israel should have complete control over all Jerusalem. This right is based on two historical facts: One, the ascension of Mohammed did not occur while Jerusalem was under Muslim possession; and, two, the Quran teaches Jerusalem plays the same role for Jews as Mecca does for Muslims.
What can be learned from the above? Arabs do not appear ready to fully accept Zion in their part of the world. Their insistence on peace for land shows they do not accept the teachings of Quran experts like Abdul Hadi Palazzi either. If they were, they would also be more willing to discuss final borders. Their schools and media would be seeking to facilitate those expectations of Israel stated in their Peace Initiatives. Until they do, any more forced withdrawals of Jews from their homes would be futile and unjust.
Like Saudi curriculum, Palestinian education is also criticized for its teaching of jihad. It is well-documented that Palestinian children are trained to wage jihad against their Israeli enemy. In a recent Congressional Research Service report, a study found jihad, martyrdom, and other religious subjects included in Palestinian textbooks while themes on tolerance related lacked any connection to the Israel or the Jews. Textbooks alone do not teach kids what views are acceptable or desirable. Textbooks only support lesson plans of teachers. Contributing to every lesson are the beliefs, values, and attitudes of teachers toward each subject including the history of jihad. When those same views and attitudes are reinforced by media and at home, teachings of jihad and martyrdom become cultural mores to be emulated by children. This is what Justus Weiner and Noam Weissman documented in a recent article. In addition to showing the pervasiveness of anti-semiticism in Palestine, they also documented the number of students trained at United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) schools who have committed acts of terrorism against Israelis.
Even if the UNRWA is not directly responsible for their students’ violent acts, a serious problem remains unchanged. The unanimous opposition to the existence of the state of Israel in the Middle East has never been rescinded. That is still a policy goal of the League of Arab States, a policy established in 1948. It is also the steadfast position of Hamas. Because is has never been rescinded, all current member states are obligated to uphold it.
Maybe that was the real reason the Palestinian National Council (PNC) never rewrote its charter after voting to do so in 1996. The PNC agreed to uphold Yasser Arafat’s 1993 letter to Israel annulling all articles that denied Israel’s right to exist in accord with UN Security Council Resolutions. It was supposedly part of the agreement of the Madrid conference and one of the conditions of the Oslo Accords.
The same is true of the 2002 Arab League’s Peace Initiative. No statement in the initiative leads one to believe they have changed their position. They acknowledge their objectives can not be achieved by military means. They expect Israel to withdrawal to pre-1967 territories and acknowledge the right to a Palestinian state; but the initiative never explicitly states the right of Zion’s existence in the Middle East. Their comprehensive peace to end the conflict is based almost entirely on Israeli obligations. If Israel meets their conditions, then they will be willing to sign a peace treaty.
The problem with peace treaties is that they are frequently annulled by contrary actions. As when the Arabs claim the British reneged on their agreement concerning Palestine; and when Israelis acknowledge Palestinians failed to fulfill their obligations to Oslo. Therefore, no one can believe their outcome will be certain. That would explain the recent insistence by officials of Israel and the United States for explicit recognition of the Israel’s right to exist in the Middle East.
Shaykh Professor Abdul Hadi Palazzi says Muslims must accept the state of Israel. A few years ago he visited Israel. During his visit, he spoke on the right of the Jews to their ancient homeland and to Jerusalem. He said the Quran teaches the return of the Jews to their ancient homeland in the last days. Therefore, Muslims must accept the state of Israel. He also explained why Israel should have complete control over all Jerusalem. This right is based on two historical facts: One, the ascension of Mohammed did not occur while Jerusalem was under Muslim possession; and, two, the Quran teaches Jerusalem plays the same role for Jews as Mecca does for Muslims.
What can be learned from the above? Arabs do not appear ready to fully accept Zion in their part of the world. Their insistence on peace for land shows they do not accept the teachings of Quran experts like Abdul Hadi Palazzi either. If they were, they would also be more willing to discuss final borders. Their schools and media would be seeking to facilitate those expectations of Israel stated in their Peace Initiatives. Until they do, any more forced withdrawals of Jews from their homes would be futile and unjust.
Print
Email
