Fearful symmetry: Palestinian and Jewish teachers confront contested narratives in integrated bilingual education

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attachedcopy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial researchand education use, including for instruction at the authors institution

and sharing with colleagues.

Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling orlicensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party

websites are prohibited.

In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of thearticle (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website orinstitutional repository. Authors requiring further information

regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies areencouraged to visit:

http://www.elsevier.com/copyright

http://www.elsevier.com/copyright

Author's personal copy

Fearful symmetry: Palestinian and Jewish teachers confront contestednarratives in integrated bilingual educationq

Zvi Bekerman a,*, Michalinos Zembylas b

a School of Education, Melton Center, Hebrew University, Mount Scopus, Jerusalem 91905, Israelb School of Social Sciences & Humanities, Open University of Cyprus, 5 Ayiou Antoniou str, Strovolos 2002, Nicosia, Cyprus

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 25 February 2009Received in revised form23 April 2009Accepted 9 June 2009

Keywords:Historical narrativesCollective memoryMulticultural educationBilingual educationCross-cultural dialogueReconcilationTeacher training

a b s t r a c t

The present paper deals with Jewish and Palestinian teachers who work in an integrated school in Israel,and shows the challenges and possibilities from examining these teachers’ powerful historical narrativesin the context of in-service training sessions. It is shown how these teachers essentially remain firmlyrooted in the hegemonic historical narratives of their own community, even when their attitudes arechallenged and clearer alternatives are considered to the reigning narratives. The findings highlightpredominantly the failures in terms of the potential of educational efforts to help overcome situationsof intractable conflict even within contexts specifically devised for this purpose; yet, also some openingsbecome apparent in the process of negotiating competing narratives and inventing new dialogicpossibilities. The implications of this work suggest that schools and their historical tradition are difficultplaces to reach change or produce itdeven in integrated schools in which partial structural change takesplacedand teacher training may not always be the answer for the need to bring changes. However, it isalso indicated that an ongoing agonistics of raising critical issues regarding one’s identifications withhegemonic narratives does offer openings to take responsibility for both the challenges and the dialogicpossibilities that are created in the process.

� 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Literature in history and history education has repeatedlyshown that narratives about the past are constructed and main-tained to justify the nation-state’s existence (Barton & Mccully,2005). These narratives are believed to be true and provide anunderlying meaning and cohesion to a national group and itsidentity. Particularly, in conflict-ridden societies, these narrativestend to be partial and explain the conflict from narrow particular-istic perspectives that justify the national self and condemn,exclude and devaluate the ‘‘enemy’’ and his narrative (Cole, 2007;Davies, 2004). If at all present, the narrative of the enemy is judgedas morally inferior while the enemy is depicted as immoral withirrational and manipulative views (Opotow, 2001). Narratives aboutthe past reflect a society’s ideology, norms and values and areformally represented in textbooks and curricula (Apple, 1979;Bourdieu, 1973; Luke, 1998) for massive educational consumption

in the homogenizing efforts of the nation-state, and thereforeschooling is particularly relevant to promoting (or refusing) theperpetuation of conflict.

More specifically, teachers play a vital role in socializing children tothe ‘‘imagined community’’ (Anderson, 1991) of the nation and itsenemies (VanSledright, 2008). Through their teaching and the ‘‘officialhistory’’ they put forward, teachers can pass their fears, prejudices,and biases on to a new generation, helping to maintain conflictualrelations and prevent the reconciliation within and between states(Bar-Tal, 2000). Alternately, it can also be argued that teachers whoteach in an honest and balanced way are likely to contribute to softeningrained hatreds and stereotypes and strengthen reconciliationefforts (Tawil, Harley, & Porteous, 2003). However, this potentialcan take place when teachers themselves critically reflect on andchallenge directly their beliefs and assumptions, and formulatea clearer alternative to the partisan histories encountered elsewhere.To be able to do that, teachers need dialogic possibilities and thesupporting structures to begin to consider alternative or reconstitutednarratives (Maoz, Bar-On, Bekerman, & Jaber-Massarwa, 2004).

The present paper deals with Jewish and Palestinian teacherswho work in an integrated school in Israel, and shows the chal-lenges and possibilities of peace education efforts to examine theseteachers’ powerful historical narratives in the context of in-service

q ‘Palestinians’ has, in recent years, become the preferred denomination of theleadership of those who were traditionally known in Israel as ‘Arab Israelis’.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ972 2 5882120; fax: þ972 2 5322211.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (Z. Bekerman), m.zembylas@

ouc.ac.cy (M. Zembylas).

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ tate

0742-051X/$ – see front matter � 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.06.010

Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 507–515


training sessions. This paper describes and analyzes the difficultiesthese teachers encounter when trying to overcome their need touphold a strong sense of identification with the history of theirown national religious communities, even when these attitudesare challenged and clearer alternatives to the hegemonic reigningnarratives are considered. The findings are not encouragingregarding the potential of educators to help overcome situations ofintractable conflict, even within contexts specifically devised forthis purpose, as are the bilingual integrated Jewish-Palestinianschools in which these teachers develop their professional lives.

The premise on which this paper restsdthat teachers drawselectively on historical narrativesdis not new; that premise is notthe most important contribution of this paper. The more importantcontribution is the analysis and sorting through the historicalnarratives brought into the context of peace education efforts, tofigure out possible ways to disrupt those practices. This task isimmensely challenging because teachers often invest strongemotions to particular historical narratives and ideologies withwhich they identify (Zembylas, 2007, 2008; Boler & Zembylas,2003). Thus there are two stories we want to tell here: on one hand,the pessimistic story is that teachers will not change their identi-fications with hegemonic narratives unless radical structuraltransformations take placedthat is, social, political and educationaltransformations that somehow undermine the power of hegemonicnarratives; on the other hand, the optimistic story is that an ongoingagonistics of raising critical issues regarding one’s identificationswith hegemonic narratives does offer openings to take responsi-bility for both the challenges and the dialogic possibilities that arecreated in the process. In this paper we tell both stories, focusing onthe implications that each story has for education and educators inconflict-ridden areas. We show that these two stories are especiallycaptivating to those working to develop history curricula thataddress multiple perspectives, particularly the perspectives of thoseengaged in conflict.

2. Theoretical background

What gets defined as official history reflects the power of certaingroups and ideologies in society to define the past according to theirinterests, often by silencing alternative and competing memorydiscourses (Crawford, 1995; Phillips, 1998). Official history, then,leaves little space for alternative narratives; it is recognized asa major part of a group’s cultural rights. Official historical narrativesreflecting a nation-state’s norms and values are ideological andpolitical in the sense that they involve systematic efforts (throughvarious state mechanisms, including schooling) to establishparticular truths (Conway, 2003; Epstein, 2001).

The circulation of official history is particularly obvious inhistorical narratives taught in schools when such narratives providea framework through which children make sense of and lay claim toa national collective memory (Davies, 2004; Siegel, 2002). Historycurricula implore students to remember the nation’s glories, leadersand warriors through practices which aim at establishing a historicalconsciousness that ‘‘aligns forgetting with evil forces’’ (Eppert, 2003,p. 186) that threaten to destroy the nation’s identity and its veryexistence. Modern nation-states have long made use of historycurricula and textbooks to promote a strong sense of belonging in itscitizenry (Nash, Crabtree, & Dunn, 1998). In areas of conflict, thesecurricula and textbooks become central tools in the prolongation ofthe conflict (Bar-Tal, 1999).

Attentive to the powerful effect of official history and historicalnarratives, recent research on Palestinian and Israeli textbooks andcurricula has shown them to be lacking in complexity and criticalitywhen presenting the multifaceted events and outcomes whichbrought about the present conflict which affects both people (Adwan &

Bar-On, 2004; Firer & Adwan, 1999). In a detailed study of the Israelicurricula produced from 1950 to 1990, Bar-Tal (1999) found that whilePalestinians were not necessarily delegitimized, they were still pre-sented through stereotypical perspectives, while Jews were called toidentify with Jewish heroism and Jewish victimization. Bar-Tal alsofound that curricula support an ethos of continuity in relation to thepresent conflict so as to allow students to cope with this situation.

In addition, Resnik (1999) conducted a study of the nationalJewish school curricula in bible history, civics, and literature overfive decades. His study concludes that these curricula enforceparticularistic perspectives at the expense of universal and civicoutlooks and endangers democracy and the rule of law whilemaking the idea of a civil society in the construction of the nationalsubject ‘a mere flotsam in a sea of Jewish-religious particularism’(p. 507). Studies conducted by Podeh (2000), on a similar period asthe one covered in Bar-Tal studies, point to the fact that in all aspectsrelated to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the history curricula in theJewish schools have, as many other tools of socialization, acted as‘‘memory agents’’ that help crystallize the Jewish nation’s collectivememory. Though he points at a changing and diminishing partic-ularistic national sense over time, and thus a lesser amount ofPalestinian stereotyping, these curricula still do not seem to openthe Israeli education system to a true Palestinian-Jewish dialogueregarding historical narratives.

There is already a rather long line of research regarding theimportance of teacher knowledge and beliefs and their impact onwhat students get to learn in schools (Clandinin & Connelly, 1996;Clark & Peterson, 1986; Clark & Yinger, 1987; Richard Milner, 2005).In addition, teachers have been shown to hold on to stereotypicalperspectives which they have internalized from the multiple socialsettings they inhabit and in turn limit the examples they employ,the questions they pose, and the answers they validate in theireducational practice (Apple & King, 1990). Others (Gay & Kirkland,2003; Gordon, 2005) have indicated the importance of teachersquestioning their knowledge and being reflective on their ownbiographical development when approaching teaching contexts inwhich race, ethnicity and cultural variations are salient. Criticalscholars have called teachers and teacher educators to engage ina careful examination of their verbal and non verbal transactions aswell as on the examination of curricular materials to help themuncover the ways in which these might perpetuate stereotypicalperspectives and inequalities in classroom activity (Gray & Leith,2004; Pinar, Reynolds, Slattery, & Taubman, 2002). These issueshave been shown to be of particular relevance in societies sufferingfrom intractable conflict. Donnelly (2004) has shown that if inte-grated schools in Northern Ireland are to develop cohesion andtolerance then teachers’ own stereotypes and assumptions needto be recognized as pivotal to the value transmission process. Inthe Israeli case, Bekerman (2005, 2009a, 2009b, in press) hasshown the attitudes of adults (parents and teachers) to be captiveto hegemonic essentialized identity perspectives that create (inpart) the protracted nature of the very conflict they are trying toresolve.

In general, there have been many calls for teacher education andtraining on providing opportunities for teachers to explore the impactof hegemonic historical narratives on teaching and learning (Beker-man, 2009a, 2009b, in press; Zembylas & Bekerman, 2008; Bar-On,2002; Bar-On & Kassem, 2004). These calls also emphasize the needthat teachers develop critical historical understanding, if they aregoing to encourage critical thinking in their own students as well. Thelarger literature on narrative and identity indicates the value ofengaging in continuous re-storying of the self (Holstein & Gubrium,2000). In particular, research on the implications of historical narra-tives for the promotion of critical understanding of history emphasizethat it is important for teachers to find new ways that are disruptive to

Z. Bekerman, M. Zembylas / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 507–515508


taken-for-granted assumptions about a group’s identity; alterativeways of negotiating one’s narratives establish new understandings ofpersonal and collective identities that enable solidarity (Hill, 2000;Ostovich, 2005). The notions of multiple perspectives, critical histor-ical understanding and problem solving are highlighted by manyrecent developments in educational research and practice (Davies,2004; Stradling, 2003). These notions constitute strategies of under-standing the Others’ perspectives and building connections withthem. Critical historical understanding helps teachers to gaina more comprehensive understanding of historical events by criticallycomparing and contrasting the various perspectives that are con-structed; to gain a deeper understanding of the historical relation-ships between conflicting groups; and to gain a more dynamic pictureof the ongoing development of the relationships between nations andgroups. Yet, in some cases, as we show here, this is easier saidthan done; notions of critical historical understanding face seriouslimitations when the insurmountable influence of socio-politicalcontext and history as well as the everyday school realities come in.

3. Situating the study

Our study focuses on events which took place during workshopsconducted for teachers in the bilingual integrated Jewish-Pales-tinian schools functioning in Israel. We are particularly interested inanalyzing the seemingly insurmountable contextual forces whichmight impede efforts of education in general, and of teacher trainingin particular, to help overcome situations of intractable conflict. Ouranalysis extends the work that has been done so far in two ways:First, it shows the multiple tensions and challenges in sortingthrough historical narratives that are brought into the context ofpeace education efforts; and, second, while it tells the story of thediscouraging results in terms of the potential of educators to helpovercome situations of intractable conflict even within contextsspecifically devised for this purpose, it seeks openings that groundsuch efforts on taking responsibility for both the difficulties and thedialogic possibilities that are created. These two contributionsenrich scholarly discussions on how to gain a deeper understandingabout the implications of teachers’ selective drawing of historicalnarratives to justify their own sense of belonging.

4. The socio-political and educational context

The Palestinian indigenous minority in Israel is historically andculturally part of the Palestinian people who currently live in theWest Bank, the Gaza Strip, and the Palestinian diaspora. They arethe ones who were not expelled or forced out of their lands duringthe 1948 Wardknown to Israeli Jews as the War of Independenceand to Palestinians as al-Nakba (the Catastrophe) – their nationaldispossession and displacement (Morris, 1987; Pappe, 1994).

Since 1948 and in the shadow of the ongoing Israeli-Arab conflictthe Palestinian (19%) indigenous minority (90% Moslem and 10%Christian) from Israel has chronically suffered while being margin-alized as a putatively hostile minority. They have little politicalrepresentation and a debilitated social, economic and educationalinfrastructure (Ghanem, 2001) are geographically segregated andinstitutionally and legally discriminated against (Al-Haj, 2004).

The integrated Palestinian-Jewish educational bilingual initia-tive studied was established in 1997 by the Center for Arab-JewishEducation in Israel with the goal of creating fully egalitarian,bilingual, educational environments equally staffed by Palestiniansand Jews and equally using Arabic and Hebrew as languages ofinstruction. Their main goal was to raise youth who can bothacknowledge and respect one another while at the same timecultivating loyalty to their own ethnic/cultural heritage. In 1998,two schools were established, one in Jerusalem (PK to K10) and the

other in the Upper Galilee (K1 to K9). In 2004, a third school wasstarted in Kafer Karah (PK toK6), the first in a Palestinian city in thenorth of Israel. The most recent school opened in Beer-Sheba in2006 (PK to K). The schools serve over 900 students.

This new educational initiative has had to confront whatSpolsky and Shohamy (1999) have characterized as being a Type 1monolingual society; that is, one in which a sole language (Hebrew)is recognized as associated with the national identity while otherlanguages (Arabic in the Israeli case), though officially recognizedas a second language for education and public use (Koplewitz, 1992;Spolsky, 1994), have been marginalized. Hebrew is a secondlanguage for Palestinians in Israel.

The curriculum of bilingual schools is the standard curriculumof the state’s non-religious Jewish school system. The schoolsemploy what has been characterized as a strong additive bilingualapproach, which emphasizes symmetry between both languages inall aspects of instruction (Garcia, 1997). Two homeroom teachers,a Palestinian and a Jew, jointly lead classes. These schools, stillconsidered a curiosity in the Israeli educational scene, must pioneersolutions to multiple curricular problems raised by mixing Pales-tinian and Jewish populations.1

5. Methodology and population

The findings we will be reporting on are based on data gatheredin the context of a 140- hour in-service training workshop con-ducted as part of a larger research project which was implementedduring the 2004–2005 academic year. Generally, the projectinvestigated the needs of teachers to have training on issues ofidentity, bilingualism, history and so on in the context of integratedbilingual schools; it was initiated as a result of previous researchfindings highlighting that very few opportunities were offered toteachers for training on such issues. All meetings with teacherswere videotaped and two observers, a Palestinian and a Jew, tookfield notes throughout the process. The present paper is basedprimarily on a careful analysis of the field notes checked against thevideotaped sessions for the sections chosen for analysis.

We analyzed the data following conventional qualitative methods(Mason, 1996; Silverman, 1993). Our first interpretative effortswere monitored through peer debriefing and later efforts includedconstant member checking, paying special attention to the ways inwhich we, as researchers, allowed or hindered preliminary coding tobe influenced by our prior expectations or theoretical inclinations.

The sense of trust which was established at the workshop,offered a level of openness necessary between the principalresearcher and the participant teachers to discuss difficult issuessuch as those relating to their historical perspectives. Though thisrelationship could have influenced our interpretations, the factthat the second author had no relationship with the participants(he was not a part of the data collection process) provided a coun-terbalance to that limitation in data analysis. While the principalresearcher’s close relationship with the teachers supported anextensive level of interaction, marked primarily by regular andextended discussions with them, the second author functioned asa critical outsider who entered the process without a similar levelof closeness. We carefully analyzed the data, looking for patternsand thematic issues of relevance, which were then coded as toallow for further analysis (each of the citations presented in the textis followed by the day and page numbers of the field notes referredto). So as to enable a more fluid reading of the texts cited from the

1 For a full description of these schools and the methodologies implemented inthe study see (Bekerman, 2004, 2005; Bekerman, 2008; Bekerman & Nir, 2006).

Z. Bekerman, M. Zembylas / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 507–515 509


field notes, we have at times slightly changed the citations from thetranscripts.

Fourteen (seven Palestinian and seven Jewish) teachers comingfrom three of the five existing bilingual schools in Israel partici-pated in the project (there were either four or five teachers fromeach school). All three schools serve a rather middle to upper classpopulation for both groups. All the teachers but one were femaleand have been working in these schools for two years or more; theywere accredited teachers holding at least a BA/BEd degree and witha minimum of three years of experience in the job.

The main purpose of the in-service project was to offer teachersa secure environment in which to discuss and research, with thehelp of experts, some of the central issues they confront in theirdaily work at the schools: bilingual and multicultural educationwithin a conflict-ridden society. Teacher participation was volun-tary and encouraged by the school principals who supported theeffort. The program was approved by the Ministry of Education asan accredited in-service teacher-training course and teachers werepaid a small remuneration for their participation by the organizers.Teachers participation in the project was outstanding, witha participation average of over 90 percent testifying to the fact thatteachers seemed to be enjoying their participation in the project.

The data we introduce were derived from events which tookplace in the second and third days of the second round of meetingsand the first day of the third training session. On these days,teachers, with the help of two expert historians (a Palestinian anda Jew who concurrently taught a joint course at the university onsimilar issues) considered the historical narratives of the Pales-tinian and the Jewish groups and issues related to the commemo-ration of national days in the bilingual schools. As was regular in thetraining sessions all activities combined elements of frontalpresentations and facilitated group dialogue.

6. Findings

6.1. Difficult issues

Already in our opening activity in which the teachers were askedto think about issues they might in the past have found difficult toraise in the presence of representatives of the other group the mainissues burdening Jewish–Palestinian relations were put forth.

Yoni (J)2 was the first to speak. Yoni is today one of the fewJewish teachers at the bilingual schools who is fluent in Arabic andis also a declared ‘conscientious objector’ who, though havingserved in the Israeli army his regular obligatory service, does notserve in the military reserves, thus positioning himself in the far leftliberal wing of the Israeli political spectrum. As did five of the sixJewish teachers who took turns in the dialogue, Yoni mentionsmilitary service and terrorism as central issues he has difficultydiscussing with the Palestinian group. He says:

‘‘I’m not embarrassed to speak, but there’s some discomfort – I think Ifeel altogether comfortable with my military service. I also havefamily members in the army and I have no problem with those whoare not refuseniks [conscientious objector]. I feel fine and comfort-able with my national group even though they don’t think like I do. Inmixed [Jewish–Palestinian] groups, the military gets a differentstress. [on the other hand] It gets me angry when a Palestinian whodoesn’t support terrorism, doesn’t condemn it. He says ‘he [theterrorist] is a part of my people.’ Now when I’m with friends and

family and I know that they serve in the Territories [conquered byIsrael in the 1967 war], I don’t necessarily condemn it. (Feb. 9 – p 2)’’

In this rather short statement, Yoni raises many of the conflictsthe teachers will discuss throughout the sessions on which we arereporting. Yoni, on one hand, is quick to acknowledge that he doesnot see his previous participation in the Israeli military as some-thing shameful or necessarily bad, and that though in disagreementwith some of his peers who do still serve in the reserve forces aswell as with his brother who is presently in the army, he does notcondemn but rather understands the choices they have made. Inother instances, Yoni is careful to indicate that while he condemnssome of the military activity conducted by the Israeli forces, ingeneral, he still believes Israel has a need for a strong army given itssecurity problems. On the other hand, he expresses his angeragainst Palestinian friends, whom he criticizes for not openlycondemning terrorist attacks. It seems that from his perspective,Palestinians from Israel, in spite of their present situation asa peripheral and subjugated minority in the State of Israel, shouldcondemn terrorism as outright evil as he does.

Palestinian teachers seem to have less difficulty expressing theirviews in the presence of the Jewish group. Nadia, a Palestinianteacher, says (in Arabic – Nadia is one of the few teachers thatregularly opens her statements in Arabic, later moving into Hebrew):‘‘I can’t bring to my mind anything that awakens fear – that I avoidsaying. There are things that are reality, and that have to be heard.They[the Jews] shouldn’t expect to hear just the things that are acceptable tothem’’ (Feb 9 – p 5). Ibtisam (P) feels very much the same: ‘‘I wrote thatI don’t know. I feel that I’m sincere and can talk about anything. I don’thave a fear of putting things on the table’’ (Feb 9 – p 5).

Next, the teachers were asked to react to the comments made byeach group. Jews are the first to respond. Yoni (J) acknowledges thatthe traditional Jewish-Palestinian asymmetry seems to be reversedin the dialogue: ‘‘I want to add that sometimes part of my difficulty isthe feeling of having to (or being expected to) apologize – as if I have tojustify myself. That’s something I don’t feel from the other side [i.e. thePalestinians do not see themselves needing to apologize]’’ (Feb 9 – p 7).

Ibtisam (P) is fast to pick up on this asymmetry reversal andresponds to Yoni: ‘‘I had a feeling that you do go through a process (youbetter understand the problems of the Palestinians), but it’s contingent.As soon as the other side doesn’t meet your expectations (to apologize)you’re disappointed. And I wonder what it is we should apologizeabout’’ (Feb 9 – p 8).

The teachers in a rather short time have been able to cover thetotality of the Palestinian-Jewish conflict as if their participation inthe joint educational experiment has made no difference other thanthe fact that issues are put on the table seemingly, though painfully,with ease. The problems raised point in the direction of a ‘fearfulsymmetry’; each argument raised on one side has been counteredon the other.

6.2. Learning the historical facts makes not much difference

For the next 6 h in the program, two historians teaching a jointcourse on history and the historical narratives of Palestinians andJews at the university take the floor. Their presentation includesa description of the university course and the curricular consider-ations which guided them in the development of it, a historicalanalysis of the expulsion of the Palestinian village of Majdal Krum(the Palestinian scholar’s village of origin), and the executions ofnine Palestinian inhabitants at the hands of Israeli forces during the1948 war; a review of new research findings on the 1948 war, andthe discussion surrounding the legitimacy of oral history in presenthistorical research.

2 To facilitate the readers’ identification of the teachers involved in the dialoguewe have added a J in parenthesis after the name of Jewish teachers and a P afterthose of Palestinians. All the names used throughout this paper are pseudonyms.



The last session of the day asks participants to relate to what hasbeen learned/discussed throughout the session conducted by thetwo scholars. Miriam (J) says, ‘‘I identify with the weak side (thePalestinians) – with the difficulty of defending my home.When theylined them up (in Majdal Krum to be executed) against the wall andshot them, the pain, the humiliation, it reminded me of the Holocaust.I’m sorry that I mention it.’’ (Feb 10 – p 25). Manal (P)reacts to Miriamwords saying: ‘‘It was strange for me to hear Miriam (J) saying it[bringing up the Holocaust in the ’48 context].’’ To which Miriampromptly reacts showing her discomfort ‘‘I apologize. There’s nocomparison.’’ (Feb 10 – p 28).

Manal (P) had clearly touched upon a taboo which, thoughhinted at before, only now receives strong attention. Yoni (J) says,‘‘[regarding] the issue of Holocaust, I want to comment that thedifference between narrative and history is very relevant. I feel thatmany times they say, ‘don’t bother me with the facts’. If he gives a storyof three killed, and then another, and then tells of an argument overwhether 8 or 9 were killed.when six years earlier 12,000 a day werebeing killed (during the Holocaust).‘‘(Feb 10 – p29). Yoni, adoptingthe traditional Jewish Zionist posture, is not ready to allow anycomparisons between the Holocaust and Nakba to be made. Ibtisam(P) counters with, ’’For us it is a catastrophe [the Nakba]. I know thatthe Holocaust is a sensitive subject for Jews. Today I see it as a catas-trophe for all humanity. But instead of enabling me to identify withthat catastrophe, the Jews treat it as a taboo and tell me not to comenear.’’ Manal (P) adds, ‘‘Suddenly I discover that there’s no place[for the Palestinian catastrophe]!’’(Feb 10 – p31)

6.3. The Palestinian narrative is an earthquake thatshatters my narrative

In the final session of the workshop, participants reflect on thedifficulties encountered in their schools when dealing with histor-ical narratives. Nur (P) shares the pressures sensed by teachers inthe school during the days of national commemoration.

‘‘I feel that we always try to balance and weigh how much time wegive to Kfar Qassem (where 49 villagers were slaughtered in coldblood as they made their way back from their fields to their homesby the Israeli army in 1956) and the Holocaust. Particularlyparents, our main consumers. Parents complain, ‘you gave 7 hoursto the Nakba and 5 hours to the Holocaust’. I can’t tell a child whopasses military checkpoints on the way to school, or has family inprison, or a girl with a grandmother. [something about the Hol-ocaust].The Jews are worried about what will happen if childrenhear both narratives and give them equal credit.I wonder if you(the Jews) really hear the story of Majdal Krum for the first time. Ihave no problem standing [at attention during the sounding of thecommemorative siren] on holidays.it (the Holocaust) is againsthumanity. Either we stay together and we reach equality or wekeep going round in the same circle. (Feb 11 – p32)’’

Lili (J) reacts to this last turn in the conversation questioning theability of two narratives to exist together in the soul of a person.‘‘Today it’s hard [for me] to read a newspaper. [I now see the] arro-gance. We can put the two narratives on the wall, but they don’t fittogether. The Palestinian narrative is an earthquake that shatters mynarrative. Nadia tells us about soldiers breaking into homes, and we’reexpected to identify with them? (Feb 1, pp 33)’’.

6.3.1. Fatem (P) adds her story

‘‘Everyone has their own problems. You have yours and we haveours. There’s no place that’s perfect. The hardest thing for me, afterwe spoke about Nakba, the expulsion, massacres etc., was when

one pupil told me that she lives in an Arab house in Ein Karem (anoriginally Palestinian neighborhood in Jerusalem today inhabitedby Jews). I didn’t know what to tell her. I hadn’t noticed that I hadhad a child like that. I didn’t know what to answer. A nine – year oldgirl. I felt that the girl felt guilty, and I didn’t want her to feel guilty.Yesterday it was hard for Ela to express her feelings. If it’s hard forEla, then how much more for a child. If she [the pupil] had been anadult, I would have asked her how she felt living in an Arab house. Iwould have confronted her. There’s a place for you to do something,take responsibility, acknowledge [the injustice]. What do I answerthat child?’’ (Feb 11 – pp 343).

Yoni’s (J) response is fast to come: ‘‘I grew up in Talbiyye. I feel oldenough to take responsibility – not for ’48 – but what responsibility doesManal (P) expect from me? ’’ (Feb 11 – pp 34). Yoni seems to bethreatened, as if refusing to accept what could be seen as the logicaloutcome of Fatem’s story. That’s to say that he himself as an adultwould be expected to return the house and not as the child in Fatem’sstory who is considered too young to carry any responsibility.

6.4. Attempts at bridging the gaps

Three weeks later, in the first activity of our third three-dayworkshop, we asked teachers in three mixed groups to try anddevelop a joint Remembrance Day/Nakbah ceremony for theirbilingual school. Though at first some teachers resisted the idea, allgroups were able to prepare a draft for a joint ceremony by the endof the activity. For the most part these drafts presented a ceremonybuilt upon the traditional patterns of the regular ceremoniesconducted for Memorial Day with added elements which, for themost part, presented in full the Palestinian historical narrative and/or paralleled the pain of both populations during the 1948 war. Thediscussion that followed raised the following issues.

Nur (P) said: ‘‘I always wanted to make a common ceremony,focusing on the pain of both peoples. In war nobody wins, everyoneloses. Those who lose family.To neutralize it politically and focus onhuman pain,’’ to which Fatem (P) added, ‘‘I have no problem witha common ceremony. I have a problem with Nakbah and MemorialDay together, where the only common thing is pain. It’s hard to say.Memorial Day, I don’t know. if I think of Memorial Day I think ofsoldiers, who are also people, but they went out and killed people whodied in the Nakbah.’’ Yoni agrees with Fatem and says, ‘‘That’sabsolutely true in both directions. Those who died on our side werekilled by the other side and vice versa’’ (March 3, pp 10–11). Yoniseems worried at Fatem’s statement which disallows the creationof symmetry between the suffering of both people. As before, hereagain there seems to be a double effort on the part of the Jews, onone hand, to prevent any parallel being drawn between Nakbah andHolocaust, and on the other hand, to secure such a parallel for thepresent situation of armed conflict between the groups.

Lili (J) aligns with Fatem but in a surprising direction that isdifferent from the one taken by Yoni. She says: ‘‘I try to think if wecould take part in a ceremony in memory of German soldiers who diedin World War Two,’’ to which Reuma (J) adds, ‘‘Ever since I joined theschool I dreamed of a joint ceremony and now I think that it is possible.When Lili said what she said, I thought wow, I couldn’t do a thing likethat (joint ceremony with the Germans) but I think there are points atwhich we can meet’’ (March 3, p14).

Yoni hints again at the need to overcome differences. This timehe tries to achieve this through the need to forget: ‘‘I feel that thememory of the human race is something we have to overcome in orderto live a normal life.’’ Yoni’s statement is not fully clear. But if toconsider it in the context of his previous statements, it seems toexpect ‘forgetting’ to be part of the Palestinian experience, as ifasking them to set a memory boundary starting with 1948. Fatem



(P) rejects Yoni’s perspective on memory: ‘‘Memory is in order not toforget, but to learn. I think that memory is very important for thefuture. The past of the Palestinians enables me to understand a simplepeople, tied to the land’’ (March, 3 pp 12–13).

The discussion till this point, though presenting serious diffi-culties, seems to open up dialogical possibilities but, as we will seein the following, these short dialogical moments are soon to beshattered.

6.5. Incommensurable visions?

The last activity in this day presents teachers with a shortexercise, built as a semantic differential, in which they are asked tocircle the number which best represents their position regardingthe ‘ought to be’ characteristics of the state of Israel. The threecentral questions they are being asked about are if they believethe state of Israel should be ‘‘a state for all its citizens’’ or ‘‘a Jewishstate’’, ‘‘secular’’ or ‘‘religious’’, ‘‘segregated’’ or ‘‘integrated’’.Teachers are asked to mark on a scale of 1 (the least) to 8 (the most)the extent to which they would like to see each of the contrastingconcepts of the deferential characterize Israel.

Ibtisam (P) is the first to volunteer to present her answers. Inprinciple, her answers reflect her disposition towards a secularstate, for all its citizens, egalitarian, and segregated. Most Pales-tinians in the group offer very similar answers with the most salientdifference being the preference of some of them towards a more orless religious (not in the sense of a Jewish state but as one in whichreligion has a say) state. On their side Jews reflected almost exactopposite views, presenting a state which needs to be defined asJewish. They too were somewhat divided on their preferenceregarding the religiosity needed for the state but again all agreed init being a segregated one.

Some within the Jewish group, those who throughout havepresented more liberal views regarding the conflict, are aware thattheir choices betray somewhat their previously declared liberaloutlooks and try to explain. Yoni (J) says: ‘‘I couldn’t decide betweena Jewish state or a state for all citizens. In all of my decisions I felt I hadto add a proviso. I’d choose in favor of a Jewish state at the expense ofequality and individual rights’’ (March 3, pp 30–31).

Reuma (J) is also ambivalent about her choice; she says, ‘‘I alsowavered between a state for all citizens and a Jewish one, and I chose 3.If I could be assured that I wouldn’t be ‘‘erased’’ in a few generations,I’d go for number 1. [There’s a fear that] if the Arabs would be in themajority, they would kill us.(March 3, p 33)’’

After these remarks there is a long period of silence, with thefacilitators failing to engage Palestinian teachers to react, at whichpoint they openly ask if anyone has an explanation for this silenceto which Luna (P) answers, ‘‘ It’s like I got slapped. Here in thebinational schools. I thought of the place where I live. I want topreserve my culture, tradition.’’ Ibtisam (P) adds, ‘‘Here I want a statefor all citizens. But there should be a Palestinian state. I want toexperience a state. We’re natives. We didn’t colonize.’’ To which Yoni(J) reacts asking, ‘‘Let’s say now there’s a Palestinian state next toIsrael. Doesn’t it look reasonable, [to have] a small state for Jews, likePalestinians?’’(March 3, p36)

Though these issues have been mentioned already before, Ibti-sam’s last statement uncovers one of the cornerstones of themisunderstandings (principally on the side of the Jews) which feedthe present conflictual situation. Jews seem to see the problem asone related to the need to find a solution to those Palestiniansoutside of the internationally recognized borders of Israel (the oneswhich correspond to the end of the 1948 war) without attending tothe plight of the Palestinians citizens of the State of Israel. Pales-tinians in Israel, without denying the need to provide a solution tothe Palestinians in the territories, see themselves as the group Jews

need to deal within search of a solution which, for them, is basicallyan issue of full equality within a civic state.

Sua (P) reflects on the exchange and points at the ever circulararguments: ‘‘We keep returning to the same place. Even here. We’re infavor of equality etc., as long as we remain a Jewish state.I expected it,to tell you the truth. Maybe not from this group. It’s like the Ministry ofEducation. Learn two languages. [but don’t touch politics]’’. Suaseems to give up; there is no way anything can change. Reuma (J),well aware of the contradictions, brings the discussion to an end: ‘‘Ina way it hurts even more that we don’t reach equality, considering whowe are (teachers in the bilingual schools)’’. Ibstisam closes with someoptimism: ‘‘I worked with Reuma in Misgav, and there was movement[she does not hold the same positions that she held when I met hera couple of years ago].(March 3, pp 38–41)’’

7. Discussion and implications

This study provides evidence that teachers’ personal andcollective perspectives are grounded in their different historicalnarratives. The teacher training that was provided made an attemptto supplement these narratives with alternative perspectives. Theevents of the workshops present a complex picture, one accom-panied by some good and some bad news. The bad news is thatthroughout the workshops we become aware that, for the mostpart, the official history - the hegemonic one – is ever present andguides and shapes even this discussion. The good news is thatteachers on both sides seem, at times, to be able to raise criticalissues regarding their own positions concerning the hegemonichistorical narrative and the educational implications of holding onor considering alternative narratives. The teachers do so even whenidentifying with or opposing the official narrative and expressdoubts as to its usefulness in the education of children. Jewish andPalestinian teachers are able to find points of agreement regardingwhat stands in the way of a better approach to history in schools.

Consequently, there are two levels of discussing and analyzing thefindings and implications of this study. At the first level, there are theteachers’ different historical narratives and the struggles to findcommon ground; at the second level, there are the teachers’ ownrealizations about the implications of conflicting historical narrativesin the context of their teaching in integrated schools. In other words,although this paper addresses intergroup dialogue among Jewishand Palestinian teachers in a conflict-ridden context, the teachers’discussions also raise issues particular to educators and theirstudents in this context. Therefore, in the following discussion wewill be addressing issues relevant to both of these levels of analysis.

The teachers’ different historical narratives become obvious rightfrom the start. When Yoni (J) expresses his views, which positionhim both in the left active-peace-searching side of the political mapand present him as someone still able to fully understand thoseIsraeli Jews that participate in the ‘‘legitimate’’ activities of the armedforces (while at the same time indicating his reservations fromPalestinians who do not condemn terrorism), all that we witness inthe development of the workshop has already been present. Whatwe witness is a circular argumentation which, though at times upsetby some new information or reflective path, seems to stabilize ina pattern which leaves almost no space for change.

Jewish teachers are the ones who attach themselves to a deter-ministic perspective while seemingly perceiving their experience asa given. Palestinian teachers find it the most difficult to speak openlyeven with those Jews assumed to be close to them or with thechildren at the school not considered responsible for the presentsituation. They are the ones who suffered and still suffer the conse-quences of past and present politics and resent the expectations onthe part of the Jews to see the present situation in symmetrical terms.Palestinians contest the Jewish expectation for both symmetry and



asymmetry: symmetry regarding the present political situation inIsrael and its conflict with the Palestinian people; asymmetryregarding the non equivalence between the way Jews suffered in theHolocaust and the way Palestinians suffer at the hands of Jews.

It is both compelling and distressing to remember that theseteachers teach in an integrated school in which teachers aresupposedly more open-minded. Yet, the hegemonic historicalnarratives are so powerful that few openings are left (Bar-Tal, 2000;Tawil et al., 2003). Both groups of teachers, however, have oppor-tunities in the context of the workshop to reflect on the many yearsof socialization they have gone through within their communities.The critical insights presented by the scholars teaching at theworkshopdinsights that clearly pointed to a wide agreementamong historians that most of the official Jewish Zionist historypresented at schools regarding the events of 1948 are mythicalddonot seem to allow for much change in the positions of the Jewishteachers. This lack of change makes it even more difficult to allowfor trust to develop between the two groups and bring about somemutual respect that would also begin to question the existing(normalizing) role of schooling and of teachers more particularly(Zembylas & Bekerman, 2008; Cole, 2007).

A possible opening for dialogical possibilities is offered whenthe discussion focuses on taking responsibility and acknowledginghuman suffering (Zembylas, 2009). There are moments in theconversation that recognizing human pain seems to open up somepossibilities for convergence, based on empathizing with eachother’s suffering. For example, Reuma’s understanding why Pales-tinian childern refuse to stand on Holocaust day, Fatem’s empa-thizing with the feelings of a Jewish girl, and Lili’s suggestion that itwas about time to have common ceremonies, are examples of howthis ‘‘difficult’’ dialogue grounded in different historical narrativescreates opportunities to raise issues particular to these teachers andtheir students in this context. What comes to light through theseexamples are the teachers’ multiple dilemmas and ambivalencesrelated to both their conceptions of historical narratives and theireveryday teaching practices. The role of teachers in these context iseven more complicated because historical narratives and everydayteaching practices are part of the wider cultural frame within whicha sense of belonging is created (Huyssen, 1995; MacIntyre, 1981).

Consequently, it becomes apparent that these teachers are facedwith an important tension. The Jewish frame alienates Palestinians andthe Palestinian one alienates the Jews; this alienation has importantimplications for these teachers’ everyday teaching practices. Bothgroups seem sincerely to want to overcome this tension but they do notseem to be able to find the way. And even if they do within the limits ofthe workshop (and this only barely) in the activity in which teachersare asked in mixed groups to develop a joint Remembrance Day/Nakbah ceremony, they consider these solutions not to be applicable inthe outside world, that is, in their everyday teaching practices.

On the other hand, social participants are not dopes unwillinglyfulfilling their tasks in the social sphere; agents have multiple goalsfor actions, while cultural encounters do not ever allow for onlyone action accompanied by one set of meanings (Wertsch, 1998;Wertsch & Polman, 2001). This is also seen in this study whenteachersdPalestinian and Jews alikedstruggle to find openings fornegotiating their narratives and their educational implications andin the process they tell stories that contain some ambivalence; thatis, stories which offer some forms of recognition to the other groupthus allowing for some convergence in their discussions.

Still in spite of some convergence and the somewhat comforting(theoretical) perspectives, the question of what can be done prag-matically, is difficult to answer. Lomsky-Feder (2004) has shown thatdisassociating, for example, memorial ceremonies from nationaldemands is not easy even in educational institutions ready to chal-lenge basic cultural assumptions. Teachers in our workshops, even

when presenting challenging narratives of their own, doubt theirpower to overcome the demands of ‘‘habitus’’ and recognize thatthey themselves embody, at least partially, the theoretical perspec-tives mentioned above.

Ritchie and Wilson (2002) posit that if teachers are given theopportunity to compose and reflect on their own stories withinsupportive contexts, they can begin to compose new narratives ofidentity and practice. We believe the workshops we developed anddescribed above, offered such support. Still we know from thereports of these teachers that upon returning to school, they wereoverwhelmed by the school realities and concluded that not muchcould be changed, at least at this initial point. For example,those who attempted to implement a joint Nakbah – Memorial Dayceremony were promptly convinced by colleagues, administratorsand the community that such efforts would not succeed. Thisoutcome could be interpreted as a product of the immediate schoolcontext and of those stakeholders who had not participated in thedialogues conducted in the sphere of trust created in the work-shops. Our take on this collapse and on the ongoing failures ofteachers to stick to the critical perspectives developed in theworkshopsdperspectives which were flittingly adopted in theirown narrations at different points in the dialoguedpoints atthe systemic challenges encountered in the wider socio-politicalspheres. Teachers acknowledged these contextual constraints inthe workshops. Multiple authorial voices, parents’ expectations, theMinistry of Education, and their own socialization and perspectivesbuilt in dialogue with the surrounding context stood in their way.As much as we tried in our workshops, we were not successful inhelping teachers to re-story (Randal, 1995) so as to undermine theauthority of the unwritten social context script.

Despite these challenges and impact on dialogic opportunities inthe absence of structural change, there are three important recom-mendations for teacher educators and teachers involved in suchintergroup encounters. First, it is important that teachers areprovided with opportunities to exchange stories with teachers of theconflicting group (Bekerman, 2009a, 2009b, in press; Bar-On, 2002;Bar-On & Kassem, 2004). This means investing seriously ina continued dialogue which would involve the educationalcommunity (teachers, parents, principals, children) and that wouldtry to consider how to empower their unique voices so as to enterinto dialogue with the hegemonic narrative that prevents reconcil-iation (Bar-Tal, 1999, 2002). This would also mean opening up forcommunal discussion and as part of the curriculum some of theissues raised in the workshops the teachers attended, and workingtogether to elaborate potentially different understandings andsolutions towards developing the tolerance needed to recognizediverse perspectives.

Second, careful analysis of the different historical narrativesshould be undertaken in intergroup dialogues along with thelegitimization of the teachers’ own stories. By re-inserting theirown oral stories within the terms and concepts of a hegemoniclanguage, teachers can begin to ‘‘translate’’ the hegemonic narra-tive and in this translation alternative narratives will enter themainstream discourse. The narrative tensions between hegemonicnarratives and personal oral stories (such as the realization ofcommon suffering in our teachers’ workshop) are related to whatRitchie and Wilson (2002) have referred to as the interplay ofmultiple and often conflicting narratives of professional andpersonal history (in our case, teachers as Jews or Palestinians and asteachers). Stories are not innocent (Randal, 1995); variations instories constitute one of the most common sources of conflict inhuman affairs on all levels, from individual relationships to entiresocieties in which different sides tell differing stories. Although theuse of narrative in the educational process implemented in theworkshop led to a generative move that enabled teachers to



uncover their assumptions, the teachers seemed not to be able forthe most part to move beyond prescribed versions of knowing(Greene, 1995). As stated, what seemed to stand in their way wasthe larger institutional-social-political context which invaded thesphere of trust created in the workshops.

However, the openings that were created suggest that some‘‘forgetting’’ may be advocated here to relax the hegemonic influenceof historical narratives (Bekerman, Zembylas, & McGlynn, in press;Zembylas, 2008). But forgetting does not imply amnesia here. Rather,the question is how to help teachers reconsider historical narratives inorder to re-socialize themselves and their students in a manner that isnot locked into predefined scripts and collective memories (Hill,2000). As Ricoeur (2004) and Eppert (2006) argue, it is less an issue ofremembrance versus forgetting than it is some forms of remem-brance versus other forms of remembrance and some forms offorgetting versus other forms of forgetting (Zembylas & Bekerman,2008). In other words, it is not that the unjust past and the sufferingare being forgotten. Rather it is the anger and the hatred that arebeing forgotten, so as to enable space for critical dialogue to takeplace.

Finally, teachers and teacher educators need to remember andcritically consider that they are not alone; even if ‘‘personally’’ theywish to change, there are too many voices around and in this sensethe school becomes a difficult and dangerous place for change.Therefore, this is one more indication that educational change needsto be understood as very tightly connected to the socio-politicalsituation outside of school and structural change; education alonecannot and will not take the place of political and structural change.

8. Conclusion

In one of his famous stories entitled Funes the Memorial, Jorge LuisBorges (1996) doubted whether Funes could think. Thinking has to dowith forgetting, he thought, and forgetting was the one thing Funescould not do. In Funes’ world, there were only immediate detailswhich he could not forget and so he died trapped in memory. True: nomemory, no self; but this still does not imply an imperative to remainattached to hegemonic recollections. When we choose to do so, whenwe organize our institutional and public spheres in remembrance ofpast tragedies, we may be suspect of an attempt to rally support forparticular interests, not necessarily those which support accommo-dation. Too much memory seems to have a monologic character;it seems not to recognize other recollections or the recollections ofothers and, if at all able to enter into dialogue, it does so throughdenial. The partial forgetting we are suggesting here implies shrinkingmemory into the individual sphere so as first to allow for the presenceof other memories, hoping later to enter into dialogue with them.When flooded by memory, Funes lost his ability to think, to reflect; hedrowned in almost immediate-past details. If we want to escapeFunes’ destiny, we need to do some forgetting without which recon-ciliation and co-existence seem to be unattainable.

We might wish some day to find that woman created by IsabelAllende (1988) who, as in the Eva Luna story, will offer (in our case)Palestinians and Jews a new fortune for five coins of gold put in herhand, even if this fortune is to be invented from scratch. The fortunewill be as good as that in the novels, extending from the day theywere born to the present, and all-inclusive, containing theirdreams, hopes and secrets, the lives of their parents and siblingsand also the history and geography of their land. Why do you hopefor so much, you may ask? It is because the current fortunes ofPalestinians and Jews are full of blood and grief and is a useless pathon which to travel their lives for they have been in so many battlesthat they have even forgotten the names of their mothers . and areat risk of succumbing where they stand, becoming a fistful of ashesas happens to those who do not have pleasant memories. Although

we do not doubt that such women exist, we doubt whether we canfind her – we might need to do that which is second best tochanging the memories: that’s to say, change the structures whichhelp create and sustain these memories.

Our study has reiterated that schools are not spheres which caneasily induce change for they are not the ideal locations for politicalmaneuvering. Thus forgetting might not be easy. Moreover askingfor forgetting from a powerful majority (the Jews) might be easierand more justifiable than from a minority that, at times, is all it hasleft. Maybe then the majority is the one which needs to carry theresponsibility for forgetting at first; something difficult to assumemight happen given present realities and an old Zionist ideologywhich has built its image on Holocaust memories.

Thus, even with teachers as dedicated as those present in thisstudy, in order to overcome conflict and forward peace and recon-ciliation it seems as if only structural change might engender thespace needed for some forgetting to take place. And yet an ongoingagonistics of taking responsibility for keeping the dialogic possibil-ities open is the only pragmatic option left.

Acknowledgements

The present research was made possible by the generous andcontinuous support of the Bernard Van Leer Foundation.

References

Adwan, S., & Bar-On, D. (2004). Shared history project: a PRIME example of peacebuilding under fire. International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society, 17(3),513–522.

Al-Haj, M. (2004). The status of the Palestinians in Israel: a double periphery in a ethno-national state. In A. Dowty (Ed.), Critical issues in Israeli society (pp. 109–126).Westport, CT: Praeger.

Allende, I. (1988). Eva Luna. USA: Knopf.Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origins and spread of

nationalism. London: Verso.Apple, M. (1979). Ideology and curriculum. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Apple, M. W., & King, N. (1990). Economics and control in everyday school life. In

M. W. Apple (Ed.), Ideology and curriculum (pp. 43–60). New York, NY: Routledge.Bar-On, D. (2002). Conciliation through story telling: beyond victimhood. In

G. Salomon, & B. Nevo (Eds.), Peace education: The concept, principles andpractices around the world (pp. 109–116). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bar-On, D., & Kassem, F. (2004). Storytelling as a way to work through intractableconflicts: the German-Jewish experience and its relevance to the Palestinian-Israeli context. Journal of Social Issues, 60(2), 289–306.

Bar-Tal, D. (1999). The Arab-Israeli conflict as an intractable conflict and its reflec-tion in Israeli textbooks. Megamot, 29(4), 445–491, (Hebrew).

Bar-Tal, D. (2000). From intractable conflict through conflict resolution to recon-ciliation: psychological analysis. Political Psychology, 21(2), 351–365.

Barton, K. C., & Mccully, A. W. (2005). History, identity, and the school curriculum inNorthern Ireland: an empirical study of secondary students’ ideas andperspectives. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(1), 85–116.

Bekerman, Z. (2004). Multicultural approaches and options in conflict ridden areas:bilingual Palestinian-Jewish education in Israel. Teachers College Record, 106(3),574–610.

Bekerman, Z. (2005). Complex contexts and ideologies: bilingual education inconflict-ridden areas. Journal of Language Identity and Education, 4(1), 1–20.

Bekerman, Z. (2008). The ethnography of peace education: some lessons learnedfrom Palestinian-Jewish integrated education in Israel. In S. Byrne, D. Sandole,J. Senehi, & I. Staroste-Sandole (Eds.), Handbook of conflict analysis and resolu-tion (pp. 144–156). New York, NY: Routledge.

Bekerman, Z. (2009a). Social justice, identity politics, and integration in conflictridden societies: challenges and opportunities in integrated Palestinian-Jewisheducation in Israel. In W. Ayers, T. Quinn, & D. Stovall (Eds.), Handbook of socialjustice in education (pp. 138–151). New York, NY: Routlledge.

Bekerman, Z. (2009b). The complexities of teaching historical conflictual narrativesin integrated Palestinian-Jewish schools in Israel. International Review ofEducation (55), 235–250.

Bekerman, Z. Identity vs. peace: identity wins. Harvard Educational Review (inpress).

Bekerman, Z., & Nir, A. (2006). Opportunities and challenges of integrated educationin conflict ridden societies: the case of Palestinian-Jewish schools in Israel.Childhood Education, 82(6), 327.

Bekerman, Z., Zembylas, M., & McGlynn, C. Working towards the de-essentializationof identity categories in conflict and post-conflict societies: Israel, Cyprus, andNorthern Ireland. Comparative Education Review, in press



Boler, M., & Zembylas, M. (2003). Discomforting truths: the emotional terrain ofunderstanding differences. In P. Tryfonas (Ed.), Pedagogies of difference:Rethinking education for social justice (pp. 110–136). New York, NY: Routledge.

Borges, J. L. (Ed.). (1996), Funes el memorioso, Vol. 1. Barcelona, Spain: EMECE.Bourdieu, P. (1973). Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. In R. Brown

(Ed.), Knowledge, education, and cultural change (pp. 71–112). London: Tavistock.Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, E. F. M. (1996). Teachers’ professional knowledge

landscapes: teachers stories – stories of teachers – school stories – stories ofschools. Educational Researcher, 25(3), 24–30.

Clark, C., & Peterson, P. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes. In M. Wittrock (Ed.),Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 255–296). New York, NY: Macmillan.

Clark, C. M., & Yinger, R. J. (1987). Teacher planning. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploringteachers’ thinking (pp. 84–103). London: Cassel Educational Limited.

Cole, E. (Ed.). (2007). Teaching the violent past history education and reconciliation.Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

Conway, B. (2003). Active remembering, selective forgetting, and collective identity:the case of bloody sunday. Identity: An International Journal of Theory andResearch, 3, 305–323.

Crawford, K. (1995). A history of the right: the battle for control of national curric-ulum history 1989–1994. British Journal of Educational Studies, 33(4), 433–456.

Davies, L. (2004). Education and conflict: Complexity and chaos. London/New York:Routledge Falmer.

Donnelly, C. (2004). Constructing an ethos of tolerance and respect in an integrated school:the role of teachers. British Journal of Educational Research Journal, 30(2), 264–278.

Eppert, C. (2003). Histories re-imagined, forgotten and forgiven: student responsesto Toni Morrison’s Beloved. Changing English, 10, 185–194.

Eppert, C. (2006). The ‘‘wisdom of forgiveness’’ South African testimonial literatureand reflections on witnessing as curriculum. Paper presented at the AmericanEducational Research Association.

Epstein, J. (2001). Remember to forget: the problem of traumatic cultural memory.In J. Epstein, & L. H. Lefkovitz (Eds.), Shaping losses: Cultural memory and theHolocaust (pp. 186–204). Chicago: IL University of Illinois Press.

Firer, R., & Adwan, S. (1999). The narrative of Palestinian refugees during the war of1948 in Israel and Palestinian history and civic education textbooks.

Garcia, O. (1997). Bilingual education. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), The handbook of socio-linguistics (pp. 405–420). Oxford: Blackwell.

Gay, G., & Kirkland, K. (2003). Developing cultural critical consciousness and self-reflection in pre-service teacher education. Theory Into Practice, 42(3), 181–187.

Ghanem, A. (2001). The Palestinian-Arab minority in Israel 1948–2001: A politicalstudy. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Gordon, J. (2005). Inadvertent complicity: colorblindness in teacher education.Educational Studies, 38(2), 135–153.

Gray, C., & Leith, H. (2004). Perpetuating gender stereotypes in the classroom:a teacher perspective. Educational Studies, 30, 3–17.

Greene, M. (1995). Releasing the imagination: Essays on education, the arts, and socialchange. San Francisco: CA Jossey-Bass.

Hill, J. (2000). Becoming a cosmopolitan: What it means to be a human in the newmillennium. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (2000). The self we live by: Narrative identity ina postmodern world. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Huyssen, A. (1995). Twilight memories: Marking time in a culture of amnesia. NewYork, NY: Routledge.

Koplewitz, I. (1992). Arabic in Israel: the sociolinguistic situation of Israel’slinguistic minority. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 98, 29–66.

Lomsky-Feder, E. (2004). The memorial ceremony in Israeli schools: between theState and civil society. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 25(3), 291–305.

Luke, A. (1998). Literacy, booklet and ideology. London Falmer Press.MacIntyre, A. (1981). After virtue: A study in moral theory. Notre Dame IN: University

of Notre Dame Press.

Maoz, I., Bar-On, D., Bekerman, Z., & Jaber-Massarwa, S. (2004). Learning about‘‘good enough’’ through ‘‘bad enough’’: the story of a planned dialogue betweenIsraeli Jews and Palestinians. Human Relations, 57(9), 1075–1101.

Mason, J. (1996). Qualitative researching. London: Sage Publications.Morris, B. (1987). The birth of the Palestinian refugee problem, 1947–1949. London,

UK: Cambridge University Press.Nash, G. B., Crabtree, C., & Dunn, R. E. (1998). History on trial. New York, NY: Knopf.Opotow, S. (2001). Moral inclusion and the process of social reconciliation. Social

Justice Research, 14(2), 149–170.Ostovich, S.T. (2005). Dangerous memories and reason in history. KronoScope, 5(5), 41–57.Pappe, I. (1994). The making of the Arab-Israeli conflict, 1947–1951. London, UK:

I.B. Tauris.Phillips, R. (1998). Contesting the past, constructing the future: history, identity, and

politics in school. British Journal of Educational Studies, 46(1), 40–53.Pinar, W. F., Reynolds, W. M., Slattery, P., & Taubman, P. M. (2002). Understanding

curriculum (4th ed.). New York, NY: Peter Lang.Podeh, E. (2000). History and memory in the Israeli education system. History and

Memory, Spring 65–100.Randal, W. (1995). The stories we are: an essay on self-creation. Toronto: University of

Toronto Press.Resnik, J. (1999). Particularistic vs. universalistic content in the Israeli education

system. Curriculum Inquiry, 29(4), 486–511.Richard Milner, H. (2005). Stability and change in US prospective teachers’ beliefs

and decisions about diversity and learning to teach. Teaching and TeacherEducation, 21(7), 767–786.

Ricoeur, P. (2004). In K. Blamey, D. Pellauer, & Trans.. (Eds.), Memory, history,forgetting. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Ritchie, J. S., & Wilson, D. E. (2002). Teacher narrative as critical inquiry. New York:Teachers College Press.

Siegel, M. (2002). History is the opposite of forgetting: the limits of memory andthe lessons of history in interwar France. The Journal of Modern History, 74,770–800.

Silverman, D. (1993). Interpreting qualitative data. London: SAGE.Spolsky, B. (1994). The situation of Arabic in Israel. In Y. Suleiman (Ed.), Arabic

sociolinguistics: Issues and perspectives (pp. 227–236). Richmond: CurzonPress.

Spolsky, B., & Shohamy, E. (1999). Language in Israel society and education. Inter-national Journal of the Sociology of Language, 137, 93–114.

Stradling, R. (2003). Multiperspectivity in history teaching: A guide for teachers.Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

Tawil, S., Harley, A., & Porteous, L. (2003). Curriculum change and social cohesion inconflict-affected societies. Geneva: UNESCO.

VanSledright, B. (2008). Narratives of nation-state, historical knowledge, andschool. History Education Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 109–146.

Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Wertsch, J. V., & Polman, J. L. (2001). The intuitive mind and knowledge about

history. In B. Torff, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Understanding and teaching theintuitive mind: Student and teacher learning. Nahwah, NJ: Lawrence EarlbaumAssociates.

Zembylas, M. (2007). Five pedagogies, a thousand possibilities: Struggling for hope andtransformation in education. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Zembylas, M. (2008). The politics of trauma in education. New York: Palgrave,MacMillan.

Zembylas, M. (2009). Making sense of traumatic events. Towards a politics ofaporetic mourning in educational theory and pedagogy. Educational Theory,59(1), 85–104.

Zembylas, M., & Bekerman, Z. (2008). Education and the dangerous memories ofhistorical trauma: narratives of pain, narratives of hope. Curriculum Inquiry, 38,125–154.


Fearful symmetry: Palestinian and Jewish teachers confront contested narratives in integrated bilingual education

Documents