An Israeli civic teacher has been accused
of (and reprimanded for) making hyper-critical and derogatory remarks against the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). This has unleashed a debate over freedom of speech in the classroom and the state of Israeli democracy. Over at the Times Of Israel, Shimon Ohayon, Member of Knesset for the ultra-nationlist Yisrael Beytenu and professor for Bar-Ilan University, writes
that politics has no place in the classroom and that “the teacher who dispenses their ideological or political worldview is failing their students and their chosen profession in a number of areas.” He goes on to explain that the job of the teacher is to:
Create intellectual space for the student to choose his or her own path, and arrive at their own conclusions on complex and frequently controversial matters such as politics, the relationship between a citizen and the state and the peace process. Their role should not extend beyond providing students the tools to make informed decisions for themselves.
My take: The problem with this argument is that the educational system in Israel is conservative and political by nature. This is expressed in the official curriculum of the state which seeks to inculcate the young with “proper” knowledge and skills. As Foucault reminds us: “Any system of education is a political way of maintaining or modifying the appropriation of discourse, along wit the knowledge and power which they carry.” Moreover, in a divided society like Israel there is also an inevitable counter curricula that runs against the messages of the state (as in the present case). This creates a situation in which educators teach the official curriculum from above, but educate the counter curriculum from below (Yael Tamir, forthcoming). For example, Arab-Israeli civic educators teach of Israel as a Jewish state, but educate as a democracy; the orthodox teach Israel as a democracy but educate as a Jewish state. The students have no difficulty figuring out which position the teacher values. But the point is that no matter what, there is no escaping politics in the Israeli classroom.
Also published in Columbia University’s ICCCR blog.
A great deal of our most difficult conflicts appear to be identity-based: Israeli vs. Palestinian, Democrat vs. Republican, Christian vs. Muslim, and so on. Identities are pitted against one another in a win-lose fashion. The intransigent nature of so-called identity conflict has understandably lead some to conclude that we must transcend our concerns over identity in order to resolve the deep conflicts that plague our societies. Yet research on identity and conflict resolution suggests that it’s premature to toss the baby out with the dirty bathwater. Continue reading
Over at Al Jazeera, Trita Parsi and I explore both the limitations and potential of using the Cuban Missile Crises as an analogy to the current situation between Israel and Iran.
“Watching the conflict between Iran and Israel escalate, it’s hard not to draw analogies and lessons from history. Indeed, Netanyahu’s thinking in this regard is very much anchored in the past: “The year is 1938 and Iran is Germany”, time and again he has warned. Such analogs provide leaders with a quick and handy “user manual”: a way to sell a desired policy path and provide a platform for action.
Yet as mental shortcuts, analogs could easily lead to unwanted outcomes. Crucial decisions, like going to war, could be based on paying attention to the wrong lessons, or making a false comparison between two different situations. Indeed, it is neither 1938 (Iran is far from having a bomb or a delivery system) nor is Iran Nazi Germany (Iran’s military budget is fraction of that of Israel and the US). Claiming so, however, leaves no room for any response save military force.
Recently, another historical episode, the Cuban Missile Crisis, has been gaining traction. Just as the US, the analogy goes, faced the intolerable choice of either attacking Cuba or allowing Soviet nuclear weapons in its own backyard, so too Israel/US must decide between attacking Iran or allowing it to become nuclear.”
To read the rest, click here.
For a long time scholars have speculated that coordinated activities between individuals – dancing, singing, walking, and exercising – increases both cooperation and a sense of group cohesion. As early as 1915, sociologist Emile Durkheim spoke of “collective effervescence”, a type of ecstatic energy that is produced by group rituals. Similarly, the historian William McNeill (1995), reflecting on his own military experience during WWII, wrote about the bonding effects that synchronous movement had on his unit:
Words are inadequate to describe the emotion aroused by the prolonged movement in unison that drilling involved. A sense of pervasive well-being is what I recall; more specifically, a strange sense of personal enlargement; a sort of swelling out, becoming bigger than life, thanks to participation in collective rituals.
More recently, the synchronicity thesis has been given empirical support from Stanford University psychologists Scott S. Wiltermuth and Chip Heath. In their study, consisting of three experiments, they demonstrated that synchronous activity actually causes people to cooperate and increases group attachment. Continue reading
My latest on the way in which Orphaned Land, Israel’s biggest heavy metal band, is transforming relations between Muslims and Jews in the MENA.
Sometimes change happens in the most unlikely ways, fostered by the most unlikely of people. In the last few years, while Israel’s relationship with the Arab and Muslim world has drastically deteriorated, an Israeli heavy metal band has been uniting thousands of Jews and Muslims across the Middle East.
Originally published in Common Ground News, a longer version of this piece also appears in The Jerusalem Post.