Language, Ideology and Education

Language, Ideology and Education The politics of textbooks in language education

Edited by Xiao Lan Curdt-Christiansen and Csilla Weninger

R

Routledge

Taylor & Francis Group

LONDON AND NEW YORK

6

Contrasting Arabic and Hebrew textbooks in Israel A focus on culture lair G. Or and Elana Shohamy

Introduction: Arabic and Hebrew teaching in Israel The teaching of Arabic and Hebrew as “foreign”1 languages in Israel offers a unique language teaching situation where curricula, methods and assessment are influenced by complex socio-political and ideological contexts. Specifically, Hebrew is the power language of Israel, while Arabic is of marginal status and prestige. Arab students learn Hebrew in schools as a compulsory subject from a very early age until graduation, whereas Arabic in Hebrew-medium schools is compulsory for only three years, with numerous schools exempted from this requirement (or disregarding it). We argue here that these parallel educational contexts—the teaching of Hebrew at Arabic-medium schools and the teaching of Arabic at Hebrew-medium schools—can be viewed as situations that exhibit a series of inequalities and imbalances that are linked to the status o f the languages and their speakers (Spolsky & Shohamy, 1999). Arabic and Hebrew are the two official languages o f Israel. This means that along with Hebrew, Arabic appears on Israeli stamps, bills, official stationary, road signs, etc. (although most often the Arabic text is smaller or placed below the Hebrew script). Many government and legal services are offered in Hebrew, but not in Arabic as Hebrew is also the main language of trade, commerce, and the service sector (Amara & Mar’i, 2002; Jamal, 2007). The Arab population, which makes up 20 percent of the Israeli population (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2012) has a separate educational system, controlled by the Israeli Ministry of Education, with Arabic serving as the language of instruction. Consequently, Arabic for Hebrew-medium schools and Hebrew for Arabic-medium schools are mutually exclusive school subjects in separate educational systems; no single student takes both of them, since the former is exclusively used in Jewish schools and the latter in Arab schools. Arabs and Jews in Israel can be seen as two separate communities, which in some ways have different aspirations, values, religions, cultures and languages. The amount of common ground and the opportunities of encounters between these communities may depend on geographical location, educational level, political views and ideology (cf. Bekerman & Horenczyk, 2004; Maoz, 2004; Sagy, 2002; Suleiman, 2004). This situation affects the way each group views the language of the other. Generally speaking, Hebrew for Arabs constitutes a major tool

110 I. G. Or and E. Shohamy for upward mobility (Abu-Rabia, 1999; Al-Haj, 1995; Amara & Mar’i, 2002), whereas for Jews, Arabic is a language of low motivation and minimal achieve ments (Hayam-Yonas & Malka, 2006; Inbar, Donitsa-Schmidt & Shohamy, 2001). While the linguistic reality in Israel is complex (Ben-Rafael et al. 2006; Shohamy & Abu Ghazaleh-Mahajneh, 2012), the fact that Hebrew is the only lan guage of instruction in higher education (except in a number of teacher colleges that teach in Arabic) makes Hebrew a desired school subject for most of the Arab population. The teaching of Arabic and Hebrew in Israel should also be viewed in light of the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians as well as between Israel and other Arab or Islamic countries. This means that the Arab population in Israel is often met with suspicion by the Jewish population; in fact, Arabic is often viewed by Israeli Jews as “the language of the enemy” (Amara, 2002; Tannenbaum & Tahar, 2008). Similarly, Arabs in Israel often view the Jewish population as the ruling group that deprives them of their rights, and they tend to have negative attitudes toward their language, Hebrew, as a symbol of Zionistic imperialism and occupation (Abu-Rabia, 1999; Khamaisi, 2009; Shohamy, 2007).

Focus on teaching materials In this specific context of marginalization and overriding instrumental motiva tions, teaching materials can be of cardinal importance, being a link between the official curriculum and the classroom. According to Brumfit and Rossner’s (1982) “decision pyramid,” the construction of materials is placed below the overarching decisions regarding the teaching approach and syllabus design, implying that the development of materials might not be as prestigious as these overarching poli cies and curriculum decisions and should comply with them rather than contradict them. Material development is only placed above classroom decisions, suggesting that teachers’ decisions are, or should be, affected by the materials. It is therefore up to developers of materials and textbooks to interpret the cur riculum and implement it, catering for many stakeholders, from government offi cials who approve the materials to teachers, students, parents, principals and the community. The materials need to reflect decisions concerning approaches and curriculum, while at the same time support the teachers’ decision-making pro cesses, enabling them to accommodate their use of the materials to the reality of their classrooms (McGrath, 2002; Nation & Macalister, 2009). In this chapter, we analyze the contents of textbooks that are currently used in the Israeli school system and are all approved for classroom use by the Ministry of Education for the year 2012-13, both in Arabic for Hebrew speak ers and Hebrew for Arabic speakers. We will attempt to show how asymmetries and inequalities (Or & Shohamy, forthcoming) are manifested in the different textbooks and workbooks used for the teaching of the two languages in Israeli schools. We will use examples to demonstrate the extent to which these materi als play a positive role in promoting communication and coexistence or, alterna tively, whether these materials fail to do so (Lustigman, 2008). Further, we will

Contrasting Arabic and Hebrew textbooks in Israel

111

evaluate how these materials reflect the complex geopolitical reality of Arabic and Hebrew in Israel.

Arabic in Hebrew-medium schools The 1996 Israeli language education policy (Ministry of Education, 1996) stip ulated that Arabic be a compulsory subject in grades 7-9 of Hebrew-medium schools, to be gradually extended to grades 10 and 11. This policy document also required that the teaching of Arabic be based on the culture of the region. It stated that Arabic is an official language in Israel, the language of the Arabs living there, and a main language of the Middle East, in Israel’s neighboring countries. The policy paper also mentioned the fact that since Arabic and Hebrew have many similarities, the learning of Arabic would also contribute to the learners’ knowl edge of Hebrew. The position paper which accompanied the policy called for Arabic language education to be reinforced and made compulsory, so that students would attain functional proficiency in the language. The importance of Arabic is linked to four key elements: (a) political, as an asset for a “peace-loving country” like Israel; (b) egalitarian, stressing the need to balance the compulsory Hebrew studies by Arabs with compulsory Arabic studies by Jews; (c) cultural, since Arabic is also the heritage language of a big part of the Jewish population; and (d) pragmatic, laying the foundation for future economic and cultural ties with Arab countries (Spolsky & Shohamy, 1996, pp. 13-14). One of the crucial factors affecting the teaching of Arabic is the issue of diglossia, forcing curriculum planners to choose between the literary language variant, often called Modem Standard Arabic (MSA), and any of the colloquial, vernacu lar dialects of the language. Traditionally, the teaching of Arabic in Israel has focused on the formal MSA variant, mainly using methods o f grammar-translation (Fragman, 1999; 2006). Although there is a growing awareness of the importance of colloquial language, proficiency in the spoken dialects of Arabic still makes up no more than 20 percent of the final grade in most cases. While there is substantial evidence that learners and their parents would prefer to learn the spoken language (Hayam-Yonas & Malka, 2006), and that using it could improve learners’ will ingness to learn the language (Donitsa-Schmidt, Inbar & Shohamy, 2004), the curriculum has been slow to include colloquial Arabic. In addition, the ongoing tensions between the Jewish and Arab populations in Israel affect the teaching of Arabic in Israel in a threefold manner. Firstly, they adversely affect the motivation of learners and their attitudes towards Arabic, which is often regarded as “the language of the enemy.” Secondly, precisely because it is seen as “the language of the enemy,” Arabic is valued as an asset for security and military intelligence purposes. 2 Finally, it should be noted that Arabic teaching is also seen as a potential promoter of peace and coexistence (cf. Lustigman, 2008; Donitsa-Schmidt, Inbar & Shohamy, 2004). According to Spolsky, Shohamy & Donitsa-Schmidt (1995), the main prob lems affecting the teaching of Arabic in Israel include the unclear status of the

112

I. G. Or and E. Shohamy

language as a compulsory subject, the high percentage of students dropping out of the subject, the low number of instructional hours, the low proficiency of Arabic teachers, the negative attitudes of students and their parents toward the language, and the focus on MSA rather than the spoken varieties. Researchers often feel that resources are wasted, not leading to meaningful achievements. A recent report (Amara et al. 2008) urges the Ministry of Education to develop an active program for the teaching of Arabic that will lead to functional bilingualism, improve the status of the language, and “de-militarize” its teaching contexts.

Hebrew in Arabic-medium schools The teaching o f Hebrew in Arabic-medium schools has undergone several stages of development over the years. According to Amara and Mar’i (2002), while Arabs did not study Hebrew at all in British-ruled Palestine, with the establish ment of the State of Israel a decision was made by the Education Committee that “learning Hebrew is a requirement for Arabs” (2002, p. 88). The decision of the Committee was completely asymmetrical, as a similar decision, requiring Hebrew speakers to study Arabic as well, was only made nearly 40 years later. One of the teaching goals of Hebrew in the Arab sector was to promote Israeli citizenship through the (assimilatory) integration of the Arabs into Israeli society. As Amara and Mar’i claim, these goals showed little sensitivity to the feelings of the learners and were driven by political motives. Knowledge of Jewish religious culture (such as the Bible or rabbinical literature) dominated the curriculum in high schools. In the interim period 1972-95, new curricula were developed for all levels of education, stressing “the cultural and literary tradition of Hebrew throughout the generations” (ibid., p. 95) and the need “to foster moral education by means of identification by the learner with positive images and positive values” (ibid., p. 95). The level of language required was extremely high, containing archaic lan guage, as well as linguistically and culturally challenging texts from the spheres of religion, philosophy, prose and poetry. In 1995, the policy became more pragmatic, emphasizing the importance of Hebrew in daily life and as a tool for achieving higher education. However, certain components of the curriculum, such as textbooks and high-stakes exams, have been slow to implement the new policy, and thus many textbooks still contain Jewish, “moralistic,” and archaic materials, and the school-leaving exams still require a very high level of proficiency and familiarity with traditional Jewish texts (Or, forthcoming). Abu-Rabia (1999) views Hebrew teaching to Arab students as a problematic social and educational undertaking, and claims that while Arabs usually have strong instrumental motivation for learning Hebrew, they encounter some motivational difficulties since Hebrew is also the language of the conflict, imposed on them since the establishment o f Israel in 1948. He concludes that the Hebrew curriculum for Arab students should be based on materials which are relevant and meaningful to students, i.e., drawn from Arab culture; he emphasizes that the materials should be understandable and contextualized, addressing students’ instrumental motiva tion in order to minimize friction and elicit more positive attitudes.


113

Given the problematic educational settings of both Arabic and Hebrew, we believe it to be of utmost importance to ask: does the way in which culture is treated in Arabic and Hebrew textbooks exacerbate an already difficult situation, or does it help to change this reality? We consider this question to be relevant to any educational context that involves conflict or competition between minority and majority groups.

Methodology and choice of materials Our analysis is inspired by multimodal, social semiotic approaches (Kress, 2010; Peled-Elhanan, 2012; Rose, 2001), striving to explicate the social meaning of textual and visual representations included in the textbooks. The main goal of our analysis is to identify and outline cultural points that reflect the problematic edu cational contexts o f Arabic and Hebrew teaching as described in the above sec tions. Our intention is to evaluate the materials as reflections of pre-existing social conditions and power relations and the possible implications of such materials on social conditions and relations. We focus particularly on how culture is portrayed or represented in major textbooks, both the culture of the target language and that of the home language of students. Table 6.1 lists the textbooks mentioned in this survey according to grade, target language and population.3

Arabic textbooks for Hebrew-medium schools Until 2009, two major series of textbooks were approved by the Ministry for use at the compulsory stage of Arabic learning, but since then, the situation has changed with the development of two additional series. The oldest series, Al-'Arabiyya (“Arabic”), developed in the early 1980s and partly revised in 2002 (Israeli et al., 2002), is still widely used. Al- ‘A rabiyya exclusively targets reading and writing in Table 6.1 Textbooks examined Arabic textbooks for Hebrew-medium schools

Hebrew textbooks fo r Arabic-medium schools

Grades 2-6

None

Ivrit la-derex (“Hebrew on the Go”),

Grades 7-9

Ivrit la-derex: kita zayin (“Hebrew Al- Arabiyya (“Arabic”), part 1 Al-higha babu l-hadara - safa on the Go: 7th Grade”) mesaperet larbut (“Language as Ha-kerem (“The Vineyard”) Eshkol (“Bunch”) a door to culture”), part 1 Mumtaz (“Excellent”), part 1 Lomdim aravit - nadrusu I- ‘arabiyya (“We learn

volumes 1A, IB, 2, 3, and 4

Grades 10-12

Arabic”), part 1 None

Lashon axer (“A different language

approach”)

114 I. G. Or and E. Shohamy Modem Standard Arabic (MSA), with no listening or speaking components. The series was innovative for its time since it focused on teaching Arabic in Arabic, without relying extensively on translation exercises. The beginner-level book in the series, designed for grade 7, focuses on the alphabet and contains very few texts and very little communicative language. The more advanced books are cen tered around texts, followed by reading comprehension and grammar exercises. The series has an old-fashioned look and feel mainly due to its non-thematic design and the lack of focus on communicative skills. The second series of books for Arabic is A l-lugha babu l-hadara - safa m esap e r e t tarbut (“Language as a door to culture”), which was originally developed in 2001 and revised in 2010 (Velstra, 2010). As the title implies, this series strives to put Arab culture at the front, using language as a tool for learning about the other’s culture. The series is accompanied by numerous audiovisual resources, and focuses on all four language skills as well as learning skills and language awareness. The target language of the series is mainly MSA, as required by the official curriculum. However, the book is predominantly in Hebrew, and thus the presence o f the target language is limited and the idea of teaching Arabic in Arabic is not followed. The M um taz (“Excellent”) series, published since 2009 (Nissimi, 2009), has been one of the new additions approved by the Ministry of Education. What makes this series unique is its simplicity, making it apparently suitable for class rooms with weaker students. In the first volume, each unit contains one or several letters that are taught, with brief explanations in Hebrew and practice centered around the new letter(s). Despite the seemingly traditional design, the series con tains materials on spoken Arabic and Arab culture as well as certain components that encourage independent work by the students. Moreover, it attempts to pro mote communicative skills by focusing on dialogues and personal narratives that are closely linked to students’ lives (Or, 2011). Lastly, the first volume of L om dim aravit - nadrusu I- 'arabiyya (“We learn Arabic”), published in 2012 (Brosh, 2012), moves away from just teaching the alphabet at the first stage of Arabic studies, and contains plenty of dialogues and exercises focused on listening and speaking. Unlike the A l-lugha babu l-hadara series, in which Hebrew prevails, this series is predominantly in Arabic and is accompanied by an interactive website that contains all the recorded dialogues. Despite its communicative focus, this series revolves around MSA only, and does not include the spoken varieties of Arabic. Thus, the series features dialogues which are not pragmatically adequate or supportive of actual communication with Arabs. Nevertheless, the series does seem to promote fluency and high pro ficiency in a simplified version of MSA, which is one o f the most important goals set by the official Arabic curriculum.

Analysis: representations of culture in Arabic textbooks When it comes to the way culture is represented, the four series of Arabic text books exhibit striking differences. In the more traditional A l- ‘A rabiyya series,


115

culture does not seem to play a central role, but some o f the stories and exercises contain encounters between Jews and Arabs, or mention Arab cities in Israel and neighboring countries. However, the pictures linked to Arab culture are extremely Orientalistic, objectifying the culture of the other by portraying it as belonging to a traditional, conservative rural society, far removed from the modem, glo balized urban culture that actually exists in many parts of Arab society. The pic tures include an elderly Druze cleric, a Bedouin sitting on a rock, olive trees, old, dilapidated houses, or a traditional coffee pot. Thus, the pictures seem to suggest that Arabs are backward, belonging to and rooted in the past, describing them as the authentic Oriental “natives” of the country, unfit for modem life (Figure 6.1). It may be surprising that even the Al-lugha babu l-haddra series, in which culture is meant to be the core, tends to describe Arab culture in stereotypical, objectifying terms. Examples of that are activities which include sentences such as “The Jew prays three times a day,” or “The Muslim prays five times a day” (Velstra, 2010, audio for p. 101), which erase and exclude many members of the respective religious communities who act differently. An extensive expository passage on the topic of Arab homes contains the following: When a young man has come of age and wants to get married, he must build the dar (meaning a house) for his bride before the wedding. He often builds

Figure 6.1 A. photo of Arab villagers included in the Al- 'Arabiyya textbook, vol. 1.

Copyright by the National Photo Collection of the Israeli Government Press Office (used with permission)

116

I. G. Or and E. Shohamy his house above his parents’ home and sometimes a short distance from their home. He builds his future and his new family. . . . (ibid., p. 12)

When showing such excerpts to Arab students participating in a training session for principals at Tel Aviv University, one of their reactions was that this is remi niscent of N ational G eographic reports about a lost tribe or some exotic species of animals. Such descriptions are interpreted as a disregard of the huge variety in lifestyles among the Arab population and the changes that have taken place in Arab society in recent years. Students may be wondering whether there are Arabs who choose other lifestyles, for instance, Arabs who are gay, who prefer to be single parents, or move to other cities. All these possibilities are erased by the over-generalizing text. Indeed, the report on the teaching of Arabic in Hebrew-medium schools men tions A l-lugha babu l-hadara as an example of the way “the Arabic language is being taught at the most superficial levels of Arab culture” (Amara et al., 2008, p. 33). The authors call for the inclusion of Arab experts from Israel and the Arab world in the development of learning materials, which will ensure that the teach ing of the multifaceted Arab culture is authentic and not superficial. The M um taz series features some ‘Arab culture’ vignettes, which are by and large limited to general knowledge items such as matching Arab countries with their capitals, flags, or leaders, specifying the number of Arab countries in the world, or the holiest city of Islam. Thus, this series manages to avoid stereotypes and generalizations in the way culture is treated, but on the other hand the treat ment of culture in this series is no more than superficial and perfunctory. The series also features excessive references to soldiers and the military, which might be counter-productive to the cause of bridging between Arabs and Jews. Lastly, the first volume of the new Lom dim aravit series contains similar exercises concerning capitals and flags of some Arab countries as well as some cultural explanations about folkloristic topics. These include a discussion of the number “five,” believed to be a sign of good luck, or a short expository text about the pyramids in Egypt. However, as in the M um taz series, culture does not seem to be a major component of the series. It is important to note that there are no references to Palestine or Palestinians, either as a political entity (the Palestinian Authority) or the national identity of Arabs in Israel and/or in the Occupied Territories, in any of the textbooks. While all the books mention neighboring Arab countries such as Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon, as well as some Arab cities and villages in Israel, the national iden tity of Israeli Arabs is minimized or avoided, and the presence of Palestinians within or outside Israel is simply ignored. Thus, a whole category of “other” is overlooked. In a map of the Arab world included in the new Lom dim A ravit series (p. 248), the Occupied Territories and Palestinian Authority are shown as part of Israel. While this is a common practice in Israeli geography and history textbooks (PeledElhanan, 2012), it is surprising that even in Arabic textbooks, where Arabs represent


117

the target culture of the books, the political agenda of denying the Palestinians’ existence and national identity is not challenged, the borders that most of the Arabs view as unacceptable are reaffirmed, and the existing political situation is ignored. It is more common to find texts in Arabic textbooks about trips to Jordan or Egypt, the only Arab countries that have peace agreements with Israel, than to find any reference to the local conflict, to life on the other side of the Separation Wall, or to the national identity and aspirations of Arabs in Historic Palestine. It is worth mentioning that the culture of the learners, although partly made “transparent” by being the culture of the majority group, is present in all the text books. Hebrew or Jewish culture is reflected by the inclusion of Hebrew proper names and place names, references to Judaism, synagogues, as well as the pres entation of Israel’s official point of view regarding the Middle East, Jerusalem, and similar matters.

Hebrew textbooks for Arabic-medium schools Considering the fact that Hebrew is compulsory at all Arabic-medium schools and is taught from early age to graduation, there seems to be a wider selection of Hebrew textbooks for the Arab sector. However, the books are often outdated, have no publication date, or suffer from poor editing or print quality. Given that Hebrew textbooks have been criticized for imposing the mainstream Jewish cul ture on Arab learners (Amara, 2007), many authors have become more sensitive to cultural issues and try to represent the culture of the learners and not just the culture of the majority group. Therefore, when considering the way culture is taught and represented in Hebrew textbooks, it is important to consider how the culturc o f the learners is addressed, appropriated, or ignored. Only schoolbooks designed for the first grades of primary school are directed toward general language skills, whereas in later grades there is a high level of specialization in areas such as literature and grammar. Thus, the textbook series Ivrit la-derex (“Hebrew on the Go”), developed since 2008 (Lipkin & Sharon, 2011; Zehavi, 2008), is designed for primary school as a general language skills textbook, whereas series like the H a-kerem (“The Vineyard”) (Khader, 2009) or E shkol (“Bunch”) (Poyas & Adawi, 2006), for grades 7, 8 and 9, are specialized literature readers, and books like Lashon axer (“A different language approach”) for grades 9-12 (Makhoul & Adawi, 2003), are grammar textbooks. The Hebrew textbooks also differ greatly in their approach to language teach ing and bilingualism. H a-kerem , for instance, written by an Arab teacher, is a genuinely bilingual series, using Arabic not only to explain difficult words but also to link students’ knowledge in their native language with topics and expres sions learned in Hebrew. Most of the texts in the book, however, are by Jewish writers and reflect the culture of the majority group. Thus, in H a-kerem for ninth grade, the texts mainly include stories, poems and lyrics by Jewish writers, along side some world literature in Hebrew translation. No Arabic literature, or Hebrew literature by Arab writers, is included, and no references to the learners’ culture are systematically made.

118 I. G. Or and E. Shohamy Conversely, the Ivrit la-derex series, mostly written by a team of Jewish writers, makes very little use o f Arabic, and represents a “Hebrew in Hebrew” approach. It refers mainly to general, seemingly “universal” or “neutral” topics such as food, sport, hobbies, nature, shopping and tourism, and the authors seem to knowingly avoid many of the pitfalls of teaching a majority language to a minority group. Nevertheless, this series can be used to exemplify the complexities and sensitivi ties which are linked to the presentation of culture to Arab students.

Analysis: representations of culture in Hebrew textbooks As part o f the cultural sensitivity of the authors, it is customary in Hebrew text books to avoid many controversial or problematic issues. This type of policy is in fact very common in the creation of learning materials, as Gray points out in the context of English teaching, mentioning “PARSNIP” as an informal acronym for politics, alcohol, religion, sex, narcotics, isms, and pork—or similar guidelines for topics that are generally to be “avoided or handled only with extreme care” (2002, p. 159). In a similar fashion, Hebrew textbooks for Arab learners in Israel tend to avoid certain topics that are culturally sensitive, especially the evocation o f the conflict between Arabs and the Jewish population. However, the attempt to avoid contentious matters does not truly mean that offending stereotypes or the imposi tion of the dominant culture on a minority group are avoided. In fact, it seems that the very wish to avoid controversial issues leads to a “flight to stereotypes” which are considered mild or harmless, and therefore are rarely questioned or critically evaluated. Despite the attempt to avoid problematic issues, the Ivrit la-derex series is impregnated with “educational” messages that represent the values of the majority group. One such value is the attitude toward nature, especially the preservation of nature and the protection o f endangered plants or animals. In the fourth book of the series, nature preservation is dealt with extensively, spanning 28 pages. In the first two-page spread, students are shown supposedly sitting in a nature reserve, in which pictures o f a vulture and a gazelle have been obviously pasted using graph ics software, discussing the topic of “protected” plants and animals. Later in the chapter are two articles about the restoration of vultures in the Carmel forest in the northern part o f Israel, further information about vultures, a presentation and practice o f male and female animal names, information about other animals in Israel that are in danger of extinction, texts about endangered flowers in Israel in general and anemones in particular, and further review exercises connected with nature preservation. This topic is later repeated in the textbook for seventh grade, where an entire unit dedicated to cyclamens is included. While nature preservation can be thought o f as a universal topic which is indeed important and beneficial, and while the authors o f the textbooks must have thought of it as unproblematic, the inclusion of this topic epitomizes the imposition of the Western values o f the majority group on learners from a minority group, and its message can be interpreted as offensive, patronizing, or condescending. While the topic may seem culturally “neutral,” circumventing many other contentious


119

issues, it is in fact a very sensitive one, since Arabs in Israel are often accused of not preserving nature, of causing bushfires, cutting down trees, shooting animals, or picking flowers (Paz, 2008). Thus, this seemingly innocuous topic o f nature preservation may in fact be interpreted as an attempt to “educate the natives” into the values of the majority group, and could be offensive to learners. Another example of how cultural issues are tackled in textbooks has to do with the presentation of Arab/Israeli foods. In the Ivrit la-derex textbook for seventh grade, there is an 18-page unit entirely dedicated to hummus, which is a con tinuation of units in previous volumes that make frequent reference to hummus or falafel. The unit, titled “Hummus on the Plate” (“xumus ba-calaxaf’), begins with a double-page spread showing students eating and discussing hummus (pp. 82-3). The next double-page spread features a Wikipedia entry on hummus, and the following spread contains a recipe. Later in the unit is an article, also from Wikipedia, about the Guinness world record for the largest hummus dish in the world. Towards the end of the unit, an “optional” activity is proposed of preparing a hummus dish and bringing it to the class. Hummus in Israel is a complex, sensitive cultural issue for several reasons. As Hirsch (2011) claims, hummus undoubtedly deserves Appadurai’s qualification of a “peculiarly powerful semiotic device” (Appadurai, 1981, p. 494), though it is difficult to decide whether hummus signifies closeness or distance between Jews and Arabs. First of all, the discussion o f hummus potentially reduces Arab culture, or any potential ties between Jews and Arabs, to ethnic food. Israeli Jews often go to eat hummus in Palestinian hummusiyot (hummus joints), where hierarchical power structures are maintained, i.e., the Arab serving the food and the Jew eating it. When discussing potential peace agreements with Palestinians or Arab countries, one o f the arguments often invoked refers to being able “to go to ‘wipe’ hummus in Damascus/Amman/Nablus.” Furthermore, hummus is often appropriated and nationalized by Israeli Jews, to the point that it is sometimes referred to as “the most Israeli dish o f all,” seen as a symbol of Israeli-ness, while its “Arabness” is repressed. In recent years, it has also undergone a process of “gourmetization” and internationalization. “Wiping” hummus (scooping it up with pita bread) as a way of eating it is being categorized as typically Israeli (Hirsch, 2011). The unit in the textbook makes little reference to Jews or Arabs—it presents hummus as a popular, healthful dish, as if it is culturally neutral and has no semi otic overtone. Among the book’s ten units, no unit is potentially devoted to spe cifically Arab culture except for this one and another titled “A Tour o f Acre” (“tiyul be-ako"), about the mixed city o f Acre in northern Israel (the latter unit also includes ample references to hummus). In both units, the point o f view is predominantly Jewish, and seems to endorse the creation of an “Israeli” subject rather than an Arab minority one. The unit on hummus does mention the fact that the name of the food comes from Arabic (suggesting that only the word, but not the food itself, is of Arab origin), and also refers to the biggest hummus dish in the world in Lebanon. Thus, Arab culture seems to be reduced to food, while at the same time hummus may be presented as a symbol of Israeli identity. Any o f these

120


possible interpretations is not culturally neutral, but instead of discussing these problematic issues and developing students’ critical thinking about them, learners are expected to discuss hummus without ever thinking that the topic perpetuates many o f the problems encountered by Arabs on a daily basis.

Discussion and conclusions As was shown above, Arabic textbooks for Hebrew-medium schools touch upon the culture of the target language very superficially. Some of them discuss only trivial details such as flags or capitals, while others attempt to communicate more information about Arab culture, but fail to go into depth, often reproducing ste reotypes and discussing culture from an outsider’s point of view, objectifying the Arabs or describing them as traditional and “Oriental.” All the Arabic textbooks fail to mention the existence of Palestinians, and such mention is also completely missing in Hebrew textbooks for Arabs. The learners’ culture is represented by the inclusion of Jewish culture and names as well as the Israeli official point of view regarding the Middle East. Few or no references to the Middle East conflict exist in the books.

Table 6.2

Summary of the main characteristics of the two types of textbooks examined A ra b ic textbooks f o r H ebrew -m edium schools

Target culture

Learners’ culture

Usually presented in a superficial or stereotypical manner, objectifying the culture of the other and presenting it as traditional and static.

Hebrew names, multiple references to Judaism and Israel; maps of the Middle East are in line with Israeli Jews’ conceptions; no attempt made to challenge learners’ culture. Reference to Palestine None or Palestinians Reference to the Minimal conflict Hidden agenda or Arabic for security purposes motivation

H eb rew textbooks f o r A rabic-m edium schools

Some aspects are minimized in order to avoid problematic contents, but the texts are overwhelmingly by Jewish writers and there is a systematic attempt to “educate” students into the values of the majority group. Some references to Arabs or Arabic names in some of the books; Arab culture potentially reduced to superficial aspects (food) or appropriated by the majority culture. None Minimal Hebrew as a tool for assimilation


121

Similarly, the Hebrew textbooks used at Arabic-medium schools are channels for disseminating the culture of the target language, but the authors seem to be aware of the fact that Israeli Jewish culture is the culture of the majority group, which may clash with Arab learners’ interests, values, or political views. Therefore, there is some tendency to prefer “neutral” or “universal” topics. Still, as we have shown, these textbooks cannot withstand a more careful critical exam ination. Such examination shows that the Hebrew textbooks attempt to “educate” the learners into the values of the majority group, or engage in highly problematic matters in an uncritical fashion, risking the reduction or appropriation of Arab culture or the perpetuation of unequal power relations. In a complex political situation such as Israel’s, language textbooks could play an important role in promoting a better understanding of the other’s cul ture, by encouraging students to be informed, think critically, and resist igno rance regarding their position or “locatedness” in a complex geopolitical reality. However, it seems that textbook developers tend to reproduce existing stereo types and power relations rather than to offer novel ways of interpreting and analyzing this reality. This may be due to the authors’ own preferences or their wish to comply with the Ministry of Education’s policy in order to have their textbooks easily approved. A better approach would be if difficult but crucial aspects of culture, such as the existence of Palestinians and their complex identities, acknowledging and critiquing stereotypes and prejudices, were included and thus offered opportuni ties for fruitful discussions in the classrooms. In this way, learners could be better informed about group identities and cultural issues in the space in which they live. More importantly, the erasure, misrepresentation and exclusion of entire groups and issues closely related to the languages taught seem detrimental to the idea of coexistence and mutual understanding since they perpetuate unequal power relations, stereotypes and even ignorance. Students would be better served if the depths and complexities of Middle Eastern cultures were not avoided, if groups and identities of people (including their own) were not excluded, and no overgen eralizing assumptions were made concerning the target culture or the culture of the learners. Within the context of teaching the language of the majority group to a minor ity, teaching materials should be particularly careful not to impose the values of the majority group on learners, and to treat the learners’ culture with respect, so that their culture is not appropriated, misrepresented, or judged from an external point of view. When cultural differences emerge, it is important to see them as opportunities for critical discussion. Thus, the teaching of languages in a situa tion of political or cultural tensions could be used to promote students’ ability to become critical citizens of their country, region, and the entire world, acquiring cultural knowledge and sensitivities, and reinforcing their intercultural compe tence (Byram, 1997; Guilherme, 2002; Nakayama & Halualani, 2010). In various respects, we believe that more symmetry should exist between textbooks for Arabic and Hebrew in the Israeli school system. Textbooks in

122


both languages should be more geared towards students’ needs, stimulate communication in the spoken language, avoid difficult, rarely used or obsolete language, and help to equalize the status o f the two groups. They should promote critical thinking and offer a variety o f ways o f thinking about social, cultural, or political issues rather than reproduce a single, official point o f view that erases many o f the complexities o f those issues. One particular area, though, in which symmetry might not be desirable, is in the teaching o f the majority group’s culture to the minority group, where particular sensitivity is required to avoid the imposi tion o f values or the attempt to assimilate the minority group into the culture of the majority. Although intercultural sensitivity is always desirable when present ing students with other cultures, in the case o f Hebrew speakers learning Arabic, there is less danger o f students thinking that Arab culture is imposed on them, but serious discussions of important cultural and political issues may cause a similar stir among Jewish learners and should be made with caution. We believe that textbooks can be used as powerful tools for promoting critical thinking, intercultural competence, coexistence, and more equality between the two groups. It is therefore important to endorse textbooks and learning materi als that have the potential to lead to stronger, meaningful interactions between Arabs and Jews, promoting dialogue and coexistence. It is our contention that language textbooks and teaching materials should be part o f a learning environ ment which defies or at least questions existing power structures and reinvents inclusive language ecology for all groups, moving away from standards, national ism and propaganda.

Notes 1 For a critical discussion of this designation, see Pavlenko, 2003. 2 Mendel (2011; forthcoming, 2014) describes how champions of the teaching of Arabic within the Jewish community in Palestine and later in the State of Israel have always considered its potential for both peace and security, but he concludes that more often than not, security was the overriding consideration. In particular, the wars of 1948, 1967 and 1973 have contributed to contextualizing Arabic as the language of the enemy, with indirect intervention of the anny, stressing its need of Arabic speakers for military intelligence. Elazar-Halevy (2009) has shown that Arabic schoolbooks for the Hebrew speaking population are replete with military references that suggest that the learning of the language is particularly useful for the purpose of war. 3 We chose to address grades in which any of the languages is a compulsory subject, and since Arabic and Hebrew differ in this respect, Hebrew for Arab schools covers a wider range of grades. While there are some Arabic textbooks for Hebrew-medium schools aimed at a younger (or older) audience than the compulsory grades 7-9, they are not used by the majority of the learners and will not be discussed in this chapter. We specifically analyze book series approved by the Ministry for the 2012-13 school year, even though it is not uncommon for teachers to use books that are not currently on the approved books list, among them old books published in the 1970s or books that do not meet the Ministry’s criteria for various reasons.


123

References Abu-Rabia, S. (1999). Towards a second-language model of learning in problematic social contexts: The case of Arabs learning Hebrew in Israel. Race Ethnicity and Education, 2(1), 109-25. Al-Haj, M. (1995). Education, empowerment, and control: The case o f the Arabs in Israel. Albany: State University of New York Press. Amara, M. (2002). The place of Arabic in Israel. International Journal o f the Sociology o f Language, 2002( 158), 53-68. Amara, M. (2007). Teaching Hebrew to Palestinian pupils in Israel. Current Issues in Language Planning, 8(2), 243-54. Amara, M.H. & Mar’i, A.-R. (2002). Language education policy: The Arab minority in Israel. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Amara, M., Azaiza, F., Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. & Mor-Sommcrfeld, A. (2008). Hora 'at ha-aravit ke-safa zara be-vatei ha-sefer ha-yehudiyvim be-yisra 'el: etgarim ve-hamlacot [Teaching Arabic as a foreign language in Israel’s Jewish schools:

Challenges and recommendations], Haifa: The Jewish-Arab Center, the University of Haifa (in Hebrew). Appadurai, A. (1981). Gastro-politics in Hindu South Asia. American Ethnologist, 8(3), 494-511. Bekerman, Z. & Horenczyk, G. (2004). Arab-Jewish bilingual coeducation in Israel: A long-term approach to intcrgroup conflict resolution. Journal o f Social Issues, 60(2), 389^104. Ben-Rafael, E., Shohamy, E., Amara, M. & Trumpcr-Hecht, N. (2006). Linguistic landscape as symbolic construction of the public space: The ease of Israel. International Journal o f Multilingualism, 3( 1), 7-30. Brosh, H. (2012). Lomdim aravit: Sefer a le f- Nadrusu l-'Arabiyya: al-kitdbu l-'awwal [We leam Arabic: Book A], Tel Aviv: The Center for Educational Technology (in Hebrew and Arabic). Brumfit, C. & Rossncr, R. (1982). The “decision pyramid” and teachcr training for ELT. ELT Journal, 226-231. Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Central Bureau of Statistics. (2012). Statistical Abstract o f Israel 2012—No. 63. Jerusalem: Israel Government. Donitsa-Schmidt, S., Inbar, O. & Shohamy, E. (2004). The cffccts of teaching Spoken Arabic on students’ attitudes and motivation in Israel. The Modern Language Journal, 88(2), 217-28. Elazar-Halevy, D. (2009). Ruxot le’umiyut u-tfisot militaristiyot be-limudey lia-'aravit be-yisrael [Nationalistic spirits and militaristic perceptions in Arabic studies in Israel] (in Hebrew). Dor le-Dor: Journal fo r the Studies in the History o f Jewish Education in Israel, 34, 7-32. Fragman, A. (1999). Summarizing and translation in teaching Arabic rcadingcomprchcnsion in Israel. Al-Arabiyya, 32, 65-86. Fragman, A. (2006, September 6). Sitat ha-tirgum-dikduk be-hora 'at ha-safa ha- ‘arvit [The grammar-translation methodology in the teaching of the Arabic language], http:// www.e-mago.co.il/Editor/edu-1260.htm (accessed June 13, 2013).

124


Gray, J. (2002). The global coursebook in English language teaching. In D. Block & D. Cameron (eds.), Globalization and language teaching (pp. 152-67). Abingdon: Routledge. Guilherme, M. (2002). Critical citizens fo r an intercultural world. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Hayam-Yonas, A. & Malka, S. (2006). Likrat pituax toxnit limudim be-‘aravit la-xativat ha-benayim ve-la-xativa ha-elyona ba-migzar ha-yehudi [Towards the development of an Arabic curriculum for the junior high school and high school in the Jewish sector: An evaluation research]. Jerusalem: Henrietta Szold Institute (in Hebrew). Hirsch, D. (2011). “Hummus is best when it is fresh and made by Arabs”: The gourmetization of hummus in Israel and the return of the repressed Arab. American Ethnologist, 38(4), 617-30. Inbar, O., Donitsa-Schmidt, S. & Shohamy, E. (2001). Students’ motivation as a function of language learning: The teaching of Arabic in Israel. In Z. Domyei & R. Schmidt (eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition (pp. 297-312). Honolulu: University of Hawaii. Israeli, L., Yinon, A., Avni, R. & Landman, A. (2002). Al- ‘A rabiyya lis-sufjfufiI- 'i ‘dadiyya: Al-kilabu l-‘awwal [Arabic for junior-high grades: First book]. Jerusalem: Ministry of Education & Ma’alot Press (in Hebrew and Arabic). Jamal, A. (2007). Nationalizing states and the constitution of “hollow citizenship”: Israel and its Palestinian citizens. Ethnopolitics, 6(4), 471-493. Khader, M. (2009). Ha-kerem: Mikra ’a le-ivrit be-vatei ha-sefer ha-arviyim - mahadura xadasha - kita tet [The vineyard: A Hebrew reader for Arab schools - new edition, 9th grade]. Haifa: Al-Wadi (in Hebrew and Arabic). Khamaisi, R. (2009). Mavo: Mabat al tmurot ve-etgarim ba-xevra ha-arvit be-yisra’el [Introduction: A view on changes and challenges in Arab society in Israel]. In R. Khamaisi & R. Gharrah (eds.), Sefer ha-xevra ha-arvit be-ysira 'el: Uxlusiyya, xevra, kalkala [Arab society in Israel (3): Population, society, economy] (pp. 11-20). Jerusalem: The Van Leer Jerusalem Institute (in Hebrew). Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. Abingdon: Routledge. Lipkin, S. & Sharon, S.-A. (2011). Ivrit la-derex: Kitazayin [Hebrew on the go: 7th grade], Tel Aviv: The Center for Educational Technology (in Hebrew). Lustigman, R. (2008). Hora’at ha-safa ha-aravit be-vatey sefer ivriyyim: shki’a nuga [Arabic instruction in Hebrew schools: A melancholy sunset]. In Sixty years o f education in Israel: Past, present, future (pp. 167-77). Jerusalem: Mandel Leadership Institute (in Hebrew). Makhoul, A. & Adawi, S. (2003). Lashon axer [A different language approach]. Nazareth: An-Naha (in Hebrew). Maoz, I. (2004). Coexistence is in the eye of the beholder: Evaluating intergroup encounter interventions between Jews and Arabs in Israel. Journal o f Social Issues, 60(2), 437-52. McGrath, I. (2002). Materials evaluation and design fo r language teaching. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Mendel, Y. (2011). Arabic studies in Israeli-Jewish society: In the shadow of political conflict. Dissertation submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Cambridge: Queens’ College, University of Cambridge. Mendel, Y. (2014). The creation o f Israeli Arabic: The history and securitisation ofArabic language studies in Israeli Jewish society. London: Palgrave Macmillan (Palgrave Studies in Languages at War Series).


125

Ministry of Education. (1996). M ed iniyyut ha-xinux ha-leshoni b e -y is r a ’e l [Language education policy in Israel]. Jersualem: Ministry of Education (in Hebrew). Nakayama, T.K. & Halualani, R.T. (eds.). (2010). The handbook o f critic a l intercultural com m unication. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Nation, I. & Macalister, J. (2009). L ang u a g e curriculum design. Abingdon: Routledge. Nissimi, R. (2009). M um taz [Excellent]. Even Yehuda: Reches (in Hebrew and Arabic). Or, l.G. (2011). X o m re h a lim u d le h o r a ’at aravit v ehat'am atam letoxnit halim udim [Learning materials for the teaching of Arabic and their suitability for the curriculum. A survey commissioned as background material for the work of the expert team on Arabic teaching], Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities (in Hebrew). Retrieved from http://education.academy.ac.il/. Or, l.G. (forthcoming). Hebrew and Arabic Bagrut exams: Inequalities and imbalances in testing policy. Or, l.G. & Shohamy, E. (forthcoming). Asymmetries and inequalities in the teaching of Arabic and Hebrew in Israeli educational system. Pavlenko, A. (2003). “Language of the enemy”: Foreign language education and national identity. Intern a tio n a l Jo u rn a l o f B ilin g u a l E ducation a n d B ilingualism , 6(5), 313-31 . Paz, U. (2008). L e-ovdah ul-shom rah: sh m ira t teva be-yisra 'el [To dress it and to keep it: Nature preservation in Israel]. Jerusalem: Ariel (in Hebrew). Peled-Elhanan, N. (2012). P alestine in Israeli sc h o o l books: Ideo lo g y a n d p ro p a g a n d a in education. New York: I.B. Tauris. Poyas, Y. & Adawi, S. (2006). E shkol: A le f [B unch: A], Nazareth: An-Nahda (in Hebrew). Rose, G. (2001). Visual m ethodologies. London: Sage. Sagy, S. (2002). Intergroup encounters between Jewish and Arab students in Israel: Towards an interactionist approach. Intercu ltu ra l E ducation, 13(3), 259-74. Shohamy, E. (2007). Reinterpreting globalization in multilingual contexts. International M ultilin g u a l R esearch Jou rn a l, 1(2), 127-33. Shohamy, E. & Abu Ghazaleh-Mahajneh, M. (2012). Linguistic landscape as a tool for interpreting language vitality: Arabic as a “minority” language in Israel. In D. Gorter, H.F. Marten & L. Van Mensel (eds.), M inority languages in the linguistic landscape (pp. 89-106). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Spolsky, B. & Shohamy, E. (1996). Mediniyyut leshonit be-ma’arexet xinux be-yisra’el [Language policy in the educational system of Israel]. Jo u rn a l o f the Teachers o f A rabic a n d Islam (b it'o n ha-m orim le-aravit ul-islam ), 20, 10-20 (in Hebrew). Spolsky, B. & Shohamy, E. (1999). The L anguages o fIsra e l: P olicy, ideology a n d practice. Clevedon & Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters. Spolsky, B., Shohamy, E. & Donitsa-Schmidt, S. (1995). H ora ’at ha-arvit b e-vatey sefer ivriyyim [The teaching of Arabic in the Hebrew sector: A profile], Ramat Gan: The Language Policy Research Center, Bar-Ilan University (in Hebrew). Suleiman, R. (2004). Planned encounters between Jewish and Palestinian Israelis: A socialpsychological perspective. J o u rn a l o f S o cia l Issues, 60(2), 323-37. Tannenbaum, M. & Tahar, L. (2008). Willingness to communicate in the language of the other: Jewish and Arab students in Israel. L earning a n d Instruction, 18(3), 283-94. Velstra, E. (2010). A l-lu g h a babu l-hadara / safa m esaperet tarbut: sefer a l e f [Language as a door to culture: Volume A] 2nd edn. Ra’anana: Studio Effect-tiv (in Hebrew and Arabic). Zehavi, Y. (2008). Ivrit la-derex: 4 [Hebrew on the go: 4]. Tel Aviv: The Center for Educational Technology (in Hebrew).