Realism Versus Utopianism in Civics Textbooks

National Resilience, Politics and Society Volume 1, No. 1, Spring 2019, pp. 53-80 DOI: https://doi.org/10.26351/NRPS/1/3

Realism versus Utopianism in Civics Textbooks

Hadar Lipshits

Abstract The three basic subjects in civics in Israel are: a Jewish state, democracy, and the system of government in Israel that combines its Jewish and democratic character. The issue in general and the civics textbooks in particular, have become subject to controversy in recent decades. A quantitative and qualitative study of the three authorised textbooks in Israeli schools revealed a common liberal tendency, albeit with significant differences between them. One defines democracy as an imperfect form of government, while the others define it as a humanistic and liberal worldview and a system of government whose laws are just and moral. The realistic textbook presents Israel as imperfect, like all democracies, while the utopist textbooks present Israel as democratic only to the extent that it is a utopia. This paper proposes that the realistic approach be preferred in order to create a consensus for teaching the subject, and to train the citizens of the future for the reality of Israeli democracy.

Keywords: civics textbooks, democratic concepts, a Jewish and democratic state, Israeli educational system

Dr. Hadar Lipshits – Orot Israel College of Education; [email protected]

53 54 Hadar Lipshits

Introduction

Public education, like education in general, is one of the fundamental sources of socialization. It is an important component in socializing individuals for the role of active citizens of the country and for cultivating a conscious, contributing, and committed citizen whose virtù1 is a fundamental component in the existence of any state. Models of civics education have been developing throughout history as early as ancient Greece and were mainly the product of the prevailing political and social orientation in the given country (Hebert & Wilkinson, 2002). In a democratic state that views citizens as the source of authority for decision making, and enables and even encourages them to influence the political process, civics education plays an even more significant role. Among the academic subjects taught in school, civics is the main subject devoted to citizenship education. When they study this subject, young people build the knowledge and tools to become active and democratic citizens (Labaree, 1997). The primary source for the study of civics education is the textbooks on the subject; most of the young people’s knowledge on the political institutions and processes in the country is based on these texts. Without understanding the policy- making process in society, shared by both private and public players about whom students learn from textbooks, young people would find it difficult to become critical and active citizens (Menefee-Libey, 2015). The textbooks are one of the factors that shape public discourse, certainly on political issues. Naturally, textbooks have become a research subject in the field of social education. Further highlighting the importance of civics textbooks is the fact that they are reflectors of “the legitimate knowledge” of the state (McCartney, Bennion, & Simpson, 2013). The books reflect the past, present, and future; they echo the historical narrative of the state, the story of the past that it seeks to pass on to the next generation. The perspectives that are articulated in the textbooks express the discourse that is accepted in that society. The books present and reflect the basic values that young people will carry into their futures as citizens of the state. This being said, there are also studies that indicate that the textbooks do not Realism versus Utopianism in Civics Textbooks 55

actually reflect the views of the entire society, but rather of the individuals engaged in civics education (Bricker, 1989). Japanese studies have called attention to the fact that textbooks reflect the struggles for national identity (Chilo & Ian, 2015). Research on American textbooks indicates a tendency toward liberal rather than republican views. The foremost commitment is to the individual and his rights, not to responsibility and the collective good (Scott & Suh, 2015). The rights that are emphasized are citizens’ rights – in particular, freedom of expression and the right to elect and to be elected. Rights are more central than duties, in accordance with the liberal philosophy, and the very word “rights” was mentioned four times more than the word “duties”. These rights belong primarily to the individual and not to the public. These studies showed that scant attention was given to history and the collective meaning of American politics, and so pupils learn very little about the public struggles that shaped the character of the state. Gonzales and his colleagues (2004) predicted that ignoring the collectivist trend when teaching students would turn the subject into a “foreign language” for them, and would increase alienation among young people towards participating in public life. In Israel, turning the subject of citizenship into a language, even a foreign language, is a declared tenet of a prominent school of thought in the field of civics education. Since the 1990s, the subject in general, and the textbooks in particular, have been at the center of a political, academic, and public struggle. A committee headed by Mordechai Kremnitzer, set up in 1995 by an education minister from the extreme left-wing Meretz party2 to “teach citizenship to students”, led to the transformation of the subject into a leading tool in cultivating a “civic identity as a common denominator for all Israelis”, as opposed to particularistic identities, such as a religious and national identity. Avnon (2006) explained the need to teach a “Civic Language” in light of its impoverishment among the founding fathers. The first president of Israel, Chaim Weizmann, saw in the Bible the source for the idea of limited government in democracies. Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, in presenting the Law of Return, which allows every Jew in the world to obtain Israeli citizenship, claimed that the right of the Jews to return to their land “was what built the state”. Avnon headed the leading academic center 56 Hadar Lipshits on civics education at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. His aim was to teach the Israeli schoolchildren “a shared civic identity” which is what the Kremnitzer report strived for, through the study of a “Civic Language”, which would replace the fundamental values of the founding fathers. On the other side, there were protests against the change. One of the committee’s members, Eliezer Don Yehia, resigned after his demand to include a reference to Zionism, the national movement of the Jewish people, was rejected in the report (Lipshits, 2016). Geiger (2009) contended that, similar to the results of studies of textbooks in the US, the emphasis is on the concept of liberal democracy. However, he says that this is not just neglecting the Zionist narrative, but a violation of Zionist and patriotic education, of the students’ commitment to the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish nation-state, and of their democratic education, critical education, and the chance to reduce tensions in Israeli society (Geiger, 2009). In 2011, during the term of a right-wing government, the curriculum changed in the critical directions recommended by Don Yehia and Geiger. Two new textbooks were published, and in 2016 a book was issued by the ministry, which replaced its predecessor of 2000. The new book met with severe criticism early, in its trial version. Pinson (2013) wrote that the book was a harbinger of change from “a Jewish and democratic state into a Jewish state”. According to her, the book distorts liberal democracy and emphasizes an ethno-national discourse as a central discourse. Kremnitzer (2016) claimed that the book advocates an anti-liberal Jewish republic. The subject of civics in general, and the textbook in particular, provoked much political debate and was discussed in the Knesset itself. During the term of the current administration (as of 2015), there were three committee discussions on the subject of the book,3 and it reached the point of confrontation between the prime minister and the minister of education.4 Ben-Raphael Galanti and Levkovitz (2013) analyzed all the civics textbooks in the State of Israel up to Diskin’s book, which was published in 2011, in accordance with the new curriculum. Ben-Raphael Galanti and Levkovitz claim that all the books since the 1950s firmly established a commitment to Realism versus Utopianism in Civics Textbooks 57 a democratic system of government along with its being a Jewish state. The concept of a Jewish state has been given many interpretations, they claim, but the concept of democracy was clear. They asserted that the book written by Diskin, a prominent political science researcher who critiqued the book published in 2000, does not deviate from the principle of learning about democracy. While Diskin does add depth to the study of the subject, he nonetheless writes about it and about the Jewish state in the spirit of the previous book. This study deals with the three textbooks that were approved by the Ministry of Education in the field of citizenship education and examines their approach to the basic issues included in the subjects titled “Jewish state”, “democracy”, and “form of government and politics in Israel”. Studies conducted around the world showed that the various textbooks in each country are usually very similar to each other. This, of course, is inevitable – textbooks are required to meet the requirements of the state for the subject.5 The current study presents the picture that emerges from an analysis of civics textbooks in Israel, with reference to the questions raised in research around the world and in discussion in Israel. It examines the way each textbook relates to democracy, rights and duties, the national narrative, the political and civil actors who shaped the state, and the centrality of liberal discourse.

Methodology

In order to examine the main subjects discussed in the textbooks and their significance, quantitative and qualitative analyses were incorporated into the study of the three textbooks approved by the Ministry of Education:

1. Government and Politics in Israel: Principles of Citizenship, by Avraham Diskin, 2011. 2. Israel: A Jewish and Democratic State, by David Shahar, 2013. 3. To be Citizens in Israel: In a Jewish and Democratic State, edited by Varda Ashkenazi, 2016. 58 Hadar Lipshits

The first two were approved for use by the Ministry of Education as complying with the curriculum, and the third was rejected by the Ministry of Education. In each school, teachers may choose one of the books to teach from, and each of them is deemed to meet the requirements of the curriculum. The current study analyzed the books quantitatively and qualitatively, similar to Menefee-Libey (2015). The quantitative section examined the treatment of the three main parts of the curriculum (Jewish state, democracy, government, and politics in Israel), and the division within the section on democracy among the various issues, the reference to the political and public struggles that shaped the character of the state, and the role of the Declaration of Independence, which expresses the vision of the founders, in each of the books. After the quantitative analysis, and in accordance with Neumann (2012), the study qualitatively analyzed the basic concepts in each book on the fundamental issues, referring to the meaning of the Declaration of Independence, democracy, and key concepts on the subject – e.g., the sovereignty of the people, rights, and the rule of law. Last, our study examined how each of the textbooks addressed the relationship between the democratic character of the State of Israel and its Jewish character.

Quantitative Results

The Ministry of Education’s curriculum stipulates the subjects that the textbooks must cover. The structure of the books shows the relative importance of each of the subjects. There are three major sections in all of the books – Jewish state, democracy, and how they are combined in the government in Israel. The issue of the Israeli form of government is presented as belonging to the first two sections. However, each book has additional sections, and some chapters of the curriculum appear in other sections. The “social covenant”, for example, appears in Diskin’s book in the section on “Jewish state”, while in Shahar and Ashkenazi’s books it appears in the section on “Democracy”. Table 1 presents the various sections and Realism versus Utopianism in Civics Textbooks 59 their relative share of the book, as well as the distribution of space between the three basic subjects of civics in each.

Table 1: The different sections and their share of the book, in percentages

Topics Diskin Shahar Ashkenazi Jewish state Declaration 9.5 39.3 Introduction 7.5 31.7 What is a 21.4 of Jewish state? Independence

State of Israel 29.8 as a Jewish state State of Israel – 24.2 a Jewish state Democracy Democratic 28.6 What’s a 33.7 What is a form of democracy? democratic 37.4 government Israel – a state? democratic state Government Israel as a 32.1 Constitutional 7 34.6 Government 27.6 41.2 and politics Jewish and Government foundations Society and politics democratic and politics of the State of and in Israel state in Israel Israel politics 27.6 in Israel 13.6

The three books devote a similar amount of space to the subject of democracy. However, there are also significant differences between them. In Diskin’s book, the section on the Jewish state is the largest, followed by how it is combined with a democracy. This is in contrast with Ashkenazi’s book, where the section on Jewish state is significantly condensed. In the middle is Shahar’s book, which gives similar weight to all the sections. Table 2 presents the relative weight of the various sections according to Diskin’s division. The treatment given by each 60 Hadar Lipshits book to the various subjects in the curriculum is presented according to the division into sections made by Diskin. For example, the subject of the social contract that was presented in each of the books, which is in the section on a Jewish state, was calculated as being in this section in the other textbooks as well.

Table 2: Topics in the various sections in the books according to Diskin’s division, in percentages

Topics Sections Diskin Shahar Ashkenazi Dec. of Independence 9.5 3.4 2.7 Jewish state 39.3 35.7 36.5 Jewish state 29.8 32.3 33.8 Democracy 28.6 30.6 33.1 Government and politics 32.1 33.7 30.4

The table shows that the significant discrepancy in the treatment of the subjects discussed in the various sections has been reduced. The chapters on these subjects are incorporated into different sections in each of the books, but the treatment of the three basic topics is not so different. Some of the issues that for Diskin represent a particular expression of the state being Jewish are found in Shahar, and most extensively in Ashkenazi, as deriving not only from the particularistic context, but from the fact of the state being democratic. It seems that Diskin’s particularistic approach is most significantly expressed in his treatment of the Declaration of Independence, to which he gives much more weight in his book. Not only does he devote a section solely to this topic, but also when one examines this topic in the other books, one can see its central importance in his book. Again, Ashkenazi’s approach is opposite to Diskin’s in this regard. Table 3 shows the weight given to the various sections according to Shahar’s division. Realism versus Utopianism in Civics Textbooks 61

Table 3: Topics in the various sections in the books according to Shahar’s division in percentages

Topics Sections Diskin Shahar Ashkenazi Introduction 14.3 7.5 5.1 Jewish state 33.1 31.7 33.7 Jewish state 18.8 24.2 28.6 Democracy 30 33.7 35.4 Constitutional foundations 8.1 7 5.2 Government and politics 36.9 34.6 30.9 Form of government 28.8 27.6 25.7

In Shahar’s introduction, the Declaration of Independence and the historical background are given more space. Here we can also learn from the division about the central importance of the historical background for Diskin, which together with the Declaration are given significant weight in his book. And again, Ashkenazi is at the other end. Not only does she not devote a section to the subject, but also the portion that is devoted to the subject is very limited. Ashkenazi’s chapter on “Constitutional foundations” is also significantly smaller compared to the other two. What emerges from this is that Shahar, and especially Diskin, devote more space to the constitutional and historical elements and the Declaration of Independence than does Ashkenazi. Table 4 shows the distribution of the chapters on democracy in the curriculum. The curriculum presents 12 chapters on the subject of democracy, and presented below is the portion devoted to democracy in each chapter in each of the books. 62 Hadar Lipshits

Table 4: Distribution of chapters on the subject of democracy from the curriculum in the books in percentages

Subject Diskin Shahar Ashkenazi The democratic ideal 19.4 8.5 7.7 Economic-social approaches 6.3 7.9 7.8 Rights 20.3 37.7 18.4 Duties 0.5 3.1 5.5 Rule by the people 21.9 6.3 7.8 Limits of government 7.6 8.5 12.5 Rule of law 4.3 9.1 8.4 Majority rule 3.8 2.8 4.1 Democratic political culture 2.9 6.3 9.3 Globalization 2.2 4.1 7.5 The limits of democracy and national emergencies 1.9 3.5 6.7 Why democracy 8.9 2.2 4.3

The table shows that the topic of rights is more significant than the topic of duties, similar to what was found in the US textbooks (Gonzales et al., 2004). The central importance of rights is even more pronounced when one examines its share in the teaching of the subject of democracy. In two of the three books, this was the central topic, especially in Shahar’s book (37 percent of the overall topic of democracy). In Diskin’s book it is one of the three central topics in democracy – rule of the people, rights, and the democratic idea. The division of topics presents two essentially different attitudes toward democracy – a combination of rule of the people, rights, and the democratic idea in Diskin’s book as compared to rights as the major topic of democracy in the other two textbooks. In Ashkenazi’s book, the limits of government is second to rights in teaching democracy. Table 5 shows a sharper aspect of the differences between the textbooks that appears in the division of the topic of rights in the different books.6 Realism versus Utopianism in Civics Textbooks 63

Table 5: Distribution of discussion of rights in percentages

Topic Diskin Shahar Ashkenazi Introduction 73 13 3 Human 0 53 60 Citizens 13 8 5 Social 5 18 13 Collective 9 8 20

The table shows the differences in focus in teaching the topic of rights in the various books. In Shahar and Ashkenazi’s books, human rights are the central topic, as opposed to Diskin, who addresses the essence of the idea of rights and emphasizes citizens’ rights. In Shahar’s book, social rights are the most prominent after human rights, and in Ashkenazi’s book, rights of the collective are most pronounced. In emphasizing human rather than citizens’ rights, the last two books are different from the standard in the US civics textbooks, which place the emphasis primarily on citizens’ rights. Table 6 presents the relative share of the textbooks devoted to parties and interest groups that have influence in the State of Israel.

Table 6: Parties and interest groups in Israel in percentages of the book and the topic

Influencing factor Diskin Shahar Ashkenazi book topic book topic book Topic Parties 6.4 76 0.7 68 1.1 96 Interest groups 2 24 0.3 32 0.05 4 Total 8.4 100 1 100 1.15 100

Here, too, there is a conspicuous difference between the textbooks. Diskin devotes extensive room to the actors who influence the character of the State of Israel – 64 Hadar Lipshits the political parties and interest groups – much more than the other two books do. Ashkenazi differs from the others in almost totally ignoring the part that civil society organizations have in shaping the state.

Qualitative R

In this section, I will analyze separately each of the three books according to the different topics and subjects and the way they choose to emphasize them:

In each of the books I analyze the basic narrative that is embedded in the way the book is presented to the pupil.

1. Government and Politics in Israel: Principles of Citizenship, by Avraham Diskin, 2011 The chapter titles dealing with the Declaration of Independence emphasize particularism: “the natural right of the Jewish people”, “the Jewish state”, “it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel”; and “placing our trust in the Rock of Israel we affix our signature”. The historical context is emphasized in the book: “The basic source of legitimacy is the ancient historical connection of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel”. The foundations of the state were laid in the world order that American President Woodrow Wilson led. According to the book, the ideological disputes over religion, economics, and the Jewish-Arab conflict had already begun during the period of the British mandate (1922–1948), and continued into the days of the state. Realism versus Utopianism in Civics Textbooks 65

With the establishment of the State, the Jewish institutions were also given authority over the non-Jewish population, preserving the Jewish character while committing themselves to equality as it had been under the mandatory government, within a complex Jewish-Arab conflict. There is harsh criticism on this subject in the description of the incident in Kafr Qasim (1956) in which more than 40 Israeli Arab residents were shot to death during the enforcement of a curfew. The judge ruled that the order given to the soldiers was “manifestly illegal”. “There are those who would argue that, considering the violent nature of the conflict, the weight of the incidents is minimal, but they may indicate the depth of the problems”. Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people, and it upholds equality before the law for all its citizens, who enjoy full rights; this stands in opposition to “racist approaches” that seek to abolish equal rights for Israeli Arabs. This is against the law, as much so as denying its character as a Jewish state. The debate on liberal, republican, and multicultural approaches revolves around the question: Should the emphasis be on citizens as individuals, on the good of citizens as a collective, or on groups of citizens? The differences between the approaches are not clear- cut. The balance between them is what determines actual everyday life. A summary of the Jewish-democratic nature of Israel is reflected in the following themes in the book:

1. The nation-state of the Jewish people. 2. Ties to the Jewish heritage and the Diaspora. 3. Full equality before the law for all its citizens, irrespective of their national and religious affiliation. 4. Sovereignty lies with the citizens.

The section on democracy begins with Churchill’s well-known words: “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others”. The definition of democracy in the book is based on Lincoln’s phrasing, “a form of government in which citizens are sovereign, where the government is elected by citizens in competitive elections, and it must uphold the basic rights of the 66 Hadar Lipshits citizens”. Alongside the longer definition is a narrow definition which defines democracy as “a regime in which competitive elections are held regularly”. The chapter on rights begins with the broad definition of democracy which requires that the basic rights of citizens be safeguarded. Some of the basic rights also apply to non-citizens, and since they are natural rights, the obligation to protect them applies also to non-democratic states. The rights that are contingent on a democracy are citizens’ rights. It is clear that in a democratic state, it is forbidden to accept norms that constitute a blatant and gross violation of a basic right, such as those responsible for what happened in Kafr Qasim. It is clear that almost every norm determined by the state violates a basic right in some way. In a democracy, the undertaking to ensure equality before the law is essential. Social rights are considered inferior to human and citizens’ rights. As for the rights of the collective, there is no evident connection between them and democracy. The rights of the collective have also upheld in non-democratic (Communist) countries, although some of the natural rights were not protected. On the other hand, not granting collective and cultural rights on a formal level does not necessarily entail a lack of tolerance. The supremacy of the constitution over the laws is demonstrated in governmental arrangements. Measures are required to restrain the government in order to protect the basic rights of citizens, the minority, and preserving the constitution. One example of a means of limiting the majority is the proportional electoral system. Another is the separation of powers, creating an independent judiciary whose function is to resolve legal disputes in accordance with the “binding norms of the state”. The controversy over economic issues is presented as originating in the opposing schools of thought of Adam Smith and Karl Marx. The “leftist” approach is called “social democracy” while the “rightist” is liberal. Diskin comments on the definitions that oppose “liberalism”, such as striving to keep intervention at a minimum, or alternatively, a commitment to helping others, especially the weak (in the United States). Concern for the weak in society is not a modern phenomenon, as evidenced in the words of the prophet Jeremiah, “Oppress not the stranger, the Realism versus Utopianism in Civics Textbooks 67 orphan and the widow”. The general tendency of politicians and thinkers on both the right and the left nowadays is to support a welfare state. In his introduction, the author argues against preferring the “substantive” over the “formal”, which is used to cover up a marked political bias and attitudes that express a definite lack of tolerance. In summarizing the subject, he wrote that it is difficult to maintain democracy even in its narrowest sense; he includes an extensive list of requirements for substantive democracy: the rule of the people, the rule of the majority while avoiding tyranny over the minority, pluralism, tolerance, consensualism, the preservation of human rights, the restriction of power, and a defensive democracy. “Each of these principles is difficult to implement by itself. Moreover, in practice we encounter contradictions between the different principles. Therefore, there can be no ‘perfect democracy’”. In the conclusion to the book, the author writes:

Israel’s constant need “to rely on its sword” to ensure its very existence threatens the democratic reality, but despite these difficult conditions, Israel has meticulously maintained the features of formal and substantive democracy. Yitzhak Rabin’s words, uttered only minutes before he was shot, are both illuminating and chilling: The people truly want peace and oppose violence. Violence is the erosion of the foundations of Israeli democracy. There may be disagreement, but decisions ought to be made in democratic elections.

2. Israel: A Jewish and Democratic State, by David Shahar, 2013 The book opens with a discussion of Jewish values and democratic values, and the tensions between them that lead to rifts in Israeli society. In practice, these values exist in combination, based on a broad consensus. The Declaration of Independence is presented as being both Jewish and democratic. Most of the citizens of Israel are Jewish; therefore, the connection and affiliation with the Jewish people, culture, and heritage are emphasized. At the same time, the Jewish majority must take into account the disadvantages to non-Jews of the state being 68 Hadar Lipshits

Jewish. The difference between a liberal and a republican approach lies in how the person is seen: as an individual or as part of society. The Jewish-Arab conflict began before the establishment of the state, and it affects the tensions in society today. In defining democracy, Shahar presents two approaches. The first, in accordance with Lincoln, states that the purpose of democracy is to enable the people to express their will and to promote their interests. There is no purpose beyond the preferences and the will of the people and protecting individual rights. But later Shahar defines democracy as a regime of political justice, and attributes this definition to Schumpeter. The principles of democracy are: government by the people, the separation of powers, majority rule, the rule of law, the limitations of power (elections, constitution, checks and balances), pluralism, and human and civil rights (natural, social, and collective). Formal democracy is a form of government that respects the sovereignty of the people and the rules of the game. Substantive democracy is a value – a worldview and way of life. In a substantive democracy, even after enactment of a law, one must check that there is no violation of human rights, and even after determining that, one must ensure that the government does not hurt the minority beyond what is necessary. Democratic states range on a continuum between formal and substantive forms. The difference between formal and substantive democracy also exists in the rule of law. Formal – punishing anyone without exception upon violation of the law – can also exist in an undemocratic regime. Substantive – the content of the laws is consistent with the basic principles of justice and morality. In practice, the way democracy is presented in this textbook corresponds with substantive democracy. The majority is not allowed to deliberately exploit its advantage in order to harm the minority. If this happens, it will mark a shift from a democratic decision to the tyranny of the majority. In democracies, citizens obey the law with the understanding that if they did not, it would cause serious damage to the quality and standard of living in the country. This contrasts with obeying the law out of fear, as happens in non-democratic countries. Realism versus Utopianism in Civics Textbooks 69

Freedom and equality are fundamental principles of democracy. It is the duty of the state to ensure that every one of its citizens has basic conditions for subsistence so that they can realize their potential. There is tension between freedom and equality, which gives rise to the socio-economic dispute between the liberal approach, which emphasizes freedom and the individual, and the social democratic approach, which emphasizes the balance between freedom and equality, and places society at the center. In other words – individual freedom versus social equality. All democratic countries recognize the necessity for social rights and operate as welfare states. The differences are in level and scope, and they derive, inter alia, from the various social and economic worldviews within each country. The longest chapter in the book is “Human and civil rights – Individual freedom (natural rights)”. According to this chapter, Democracy is founded on a belief in the value of the human being, his dignity, and unique nature, which led to the creation of principles aimed at realizing in practice the ideas of human value, dignity, and liberty. The goal of human rights is to make society more fair-minded and just. At the beginning of the chapter, there is a distinction between human rights, citizens’ rights, and civil rights, which are all entailed by the democratic state. However, the lengthy discussion refers to all rights as specifically human rights. It also addresses the obligations of the individual not to harm the liberties and dignity of others. The citizen’s obligations are to obey the law and a moral commitment to participate in elections, as well as to warn others of hazards and to help their fellow man. The separation of powers leads to a restriction on government, which leads to guaranteeing the freedom of the citizen, leading in turn to ensuring the operation and efficiency of the entire system of government. The judiciary branch balances and restrains the legislative branch by interpreting the law, and it also checks the actions of the executive branch in cases that come before the court. The supreme status of the constitution is guaranteed by the fact that every law must be in accordance with its spirit and content. The basic principles from which the norms and rules of behavior and functioning are derived and which together make up the 70 Hadar Lipshits democratic culture, direct the citizens of the state to conduct themselves according to them, not only in the political sphere, but also in other areas – in communities, organizations, the family, at school, and more. The last sections, dealing with constitutional foundations, the regime, and politics in Israel, contain the chapter, “Citizenship in Israel – The Law of Return and the Citizenship Law”, which quotes Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, who defined the Law of Return as “the law of the fulfillment of Israeli history”.

3. To be Citizens in Israel: In a Jewish and Democratic State, edited by Varda Ashkenazi, 2016 The Declaration of Independence presents the character of the state as Jewish, and also as democratic because of its commitment to the values of freedom and equality that underlie the concept of liberal democracy, and to democratic mechanisms such as elections, a constitution, and the separation of powers. According to the book, there is tension between the attempt to apply the values democracy and human rights and the attempt to give practical expression to the state’s Jewish identity, but most of the Israeli public believes that it is possible to properly merge the Jewish element with the democratic and liberal foundations. One example of this tension relates to the status of Arab citizens. The Declaration of Independence promised to preserve their rights; when it was written, they had already participated in elections to the Constituent Assembly (the First Knesset). Nevertheless, the book points out, there is sometimes a difference between the declarative and legal levels, where there is equality of rights, and the practical level, where there are sometimes complaints about unequal treatment between the state’s Jewish and non-Jewish citizens. The book asks whether Israel meets the three obligations. One chapter deals with “Justifications for the Existence of a Nation State”. According to this chapter, the accepted worldview in liberal democracies places humanistic values at the center; it is the role of the state to act for the welfare of every individual. Presumably we do not expect a liberal state to focus on one national ethnic-cultural group. The liberal justifications seek to show that a Realism versus Utopianism in Civics Textbooks 71 nation-state can exist without infringing on human rights, and instead may even advance them, although in all the democratic nation-states, relations between the majority and the minority are complex. The democratic worldview is humanistic, liberal, and egalitarian, based on the premise that man is intelligent, free, autonomous, capable of using his intelligence to decide what is moral and how to act, and therefore able to determine the political regime for himself. The book distinguishes between democracy as a form of (formal) government, which strives to guarantee the sovereignty of the people, and democracy as a worldview (substantive), which is generally the second level of democracy, built upon democracy as a form of government. An argument is presented as to whether the court is entitled to invalidate the parliament’s decision because it is contrary to the democratic worldview, and whether those who do not share this worldview, although they respect the rules of the game and believe in them, can be within the limits of democracy. Liberalism, multiculturalism, and republicanism are three liberal democratic worldviews that place man at the center, and they disagree on how he can best fulfill himself. The longest chapter is “The Human and Civil Rights Principle”. It begins with a distinction between “liberty”, which must not be prevented, and “rights”, for which action must be taken. The moral purpose of the democratic state is to protect the rights of the people living in the country. In the event of a clash between rights and the interests of the state, a proportionate solution must be sought, keeping the harm to a necessary minimum. All basic human rights are equal in value. In democratic countries, there are various solutions in accordance with the relative weight they give to conflicting values. Citizens’ obligations are to respect the rights of others, to avoid infringing upon them, and to act to realize them. The citizens’ obligations are to be loyal to the state and to participate in elections. The discourse on rights continues to develop, such as the right to environmental preservation (sustainability). In order to ensure the realization of rights in the liberal democratic state – the government must be restricted. The principle of limiting governmental power is based on the premise that the citizens of the state are autonomous, intelligent, and 72 Hadar Lipshits capable of evaluating and overseeing the actions of the government. In elections, key democratic principles are upheld, such as government by the people, the restriction of power, human and civil rights, pluralism, tolerance, and agreement on the rules of the game. In a democracy, elections, like the separation of powers, are an institutional means that limits the government through the power of the law. The constitution also restricts the government, and the courts are empowered to declare it void if it contradicts the constitution. Some theorists hold that the content of any law should be checked for its consistency with the liberal idea of human and civil rights. A manifestly illegal order is one that every person acknowledges, even if he is a non-jurist, to be an order that should not be obeyed. The dispute over social and economic issues is rooted in ideologies that resolve the tension between freedom (neo-liberalism) and socio-economic equality (social democracy) in different ways. Most of the thinkers of both schools of thought agree today that the two concepts should be combined in democratic countries. The scope of services available in welfare states varies according to the socio-economic approach adopted by each country. The sub- section “How democracy is superior to non-democratic regimes” argues that the representatives of the people will best realize human rights, and that democracy promotes education and provides opportunities for social mobility and economic prosperity. In non-democratic regimes, citizens do not necessarily have the opportunity to choose their professions. In the last sections, the sub-section “Is the Law of Return a law that differentiates or discriminates?” presents two positions, and states that most of the Jewish citizens of the State of Israel support the view that the Law of Return is justified and legitimate. In the conclusive section, there is an article that presents the law as making amends for the terrible discrimination suffered by Jews before the establishment of the State of Israel. The Law of Return and the Citizenship Law have constitutional content, and some believe that they should be part of the future constitution of the State of Israel. In the sub-section titled, “What are the functions of the judiciary branch in a democratic state?” the following themes are raised: Realism versus Utopianism in Civics Textbooks 73

1. Interpretation of Knesset laws and their adaptation to the complex circumstances of life. 2. Protecting human and civil rights. 3. Maintaining the rule of law and public order. 4. Oversight of the legality of government actions.

In the closing paragraphs of the book the writer concludes:

The goals of citizenship studies are internalizing the values of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, fostering sensitivity to the protection of human and civil rights in general, and the rights of weak and vulnerable groups in particular, and creating involvement in public and state affairs.

Conclusions

All the textbooks present a similar picture in their excessive attention to rights, far beyond attention to obligations, and in their emphasis on the liberal approach. However, Israeli textbooks feature a phenomenon that is not well-known – significant differences within the basic subjects in the textbooks approved by the Ministry of Education that meet the curriculum requirements. In two of the three books, the liberal emphasis is more extreme in Israel than in the United States because of the stress on human rights as opposed to citizens’ rights. The individual and individual rights exist without any connection to the state, or even to citizenship in the state. The books present two completely different orientations to democracy. The fundamental difference is in the definition of democracy – as a form of government or as a worldview. Diskin’s book presents democracy as a form of government that is far from perfect, and it has a realistic character compared with that of the textbooks written by Shahar, and especially with the one by Ashkenazi, which has a utopist approach. In those two books democracy is presented as a humanistic, liberal worldview. 74 Hadar Lipshits

Diskin begins and ends his discussion of democracy with Churchill’s words. The organizing definition of the discussion belongs to Lincoln. The sovereignty of the people is the only norm that a constitution cannot nullify and still remain democratic. Competitive elections are a necessary condition in all definitions of a democracy. This somewhat narrow definition is sufficient for scholars such as Schumpeter ([1942] 2008), while Lincoln’s broad definition requires that the basic rights of citizens be preserved. However, even the narrow definition cannot be fully implemented. There is an emphasis on the obligation to maintain equality before the law, and there are other virtuous demands, which have not been realized and could not have been realized in full – such as preservation of human rights, pluralism, the restriction of power, refraining from the tyranny of the majority, and more. At the beginning of the topic of democracy, Shahar follows in the footsteps of Diskin and Lincoln, but quickly transitions to define democracy as a regime of political justice, and then, like Ashkenazi, distinguishes between formal and substantive democracy. In the description of democracy, both books lean in the direction of substantive democracy. Democracy is often presented as idyllic. Compliance with the law in democracies is performed out of understanding and not out of fear. The restriction of government ensures the freedom of the citizen, which in turn ensures the effective functioning of the government. A democratic culture is also demonstrated in the family. There are many principles of democracy, and it is difficult to distinguish between the major and minor ones. Ashkenazi presents an almost complete identification of “democracy” with “liberal democracy”. The differences between the books are evident through several fundamental issues in teaching democracy. For Diskin there are three main issues – Lincoln’s tripartite definition as the basis, rights, and government of the people. For Shahar, the main issue is rights, much more than the others. For Ashkenazi, rights are the biggest issue, followed by the restriction of government. The issue of the rule of the people is marginal for the last two. Democracy, according to them, consists mainly of rights, and requires limiting government for the sake of these rights. Realism versus Utopianism in Civics Textbooks 75

Diskin emphasizes the difference between democracy’s commitment to the rights of its citizens, and a lower obligation to the rights of every human being – an obligation that should also be upheld in non-democratic countries. This difference between human rights and citizens’ rights appears vaguely in Shahar’s book, whereas in Ashkenazi’s book the distinction hardly exists. Democracy as the rule of the people and basic rights for citizens appears in Diskin’s book, as opposed to democracy that is presented as human rights in the latter two. The issue of rights is also at the root of the disputes regarding economic and social issues for Shahar and Ashkenazi, as opposed to Diskin. Elections appear in Diskin’s book as the most fundamental and distinctive characteristic of a democracy. They appear, of course, in Ashkenazi’s book and in Shahar’s book too, but their meaning there is vague; they are presented as part of the democratic mechanisms for limiting the government, along with a constitution and the separation of powers. Ashkenazi’s book has a legalistic character, describing elections as merely an institutional means that limits the government by power of the law. The role of the judiciary is also presented in different ways. All three books emphasize the importance of its independence, but for Diskin, its primary role is to resolve legal disputes in accordance with the binding norms of the state. For Shahar, the judiciary balances and restrains the legislative branch, and oversees the actions of the executive branch. Ashkenazi adds to the role of the judiciary the preservation of the rule of law, and even positions the courts as being entrusted with substantive democracy as opposed to the majority, which is entrusted with formal democracy. Another fundamental difference lies within their treatment of the source of the basic values of the State of Israel. This is also evident quantitatively: only Diskin devotes an entire section to the Declaration of Independence. In his book, the subject of the Jewish state is largest in size. In Shahar’s book, this topic is similar in size to the subject of democracy, whereas in Ashkenazi’s book, the subject of democracy is given almost double the amount of space that is devoted to the topic of a Jewish state. Diskin emphasizes the particular nature of the Declaration 76 Hadar Lipshits of Independence, although like Shahar, he describes its Jewish and democratic character. In Ashkenazi’s book, it is Jewish, democratic, and liberal. In the last two, democratic principles in general, and liberty and equality in particular, are the guiding principles. The ideological debates revolve around the implementation of the principles, and their resolutions are presented as a balance between the various thinkers. In Diskin’s book, decisions are presented as the result of ongoing struggles between the different political camps and interest groups. This appears in the description of economic policy, and is also reflected in the struggle between the political camps and the social movements in Israel. The quantitative comparison shows the extensive treatment of this subject in Diskin’s book, while Ashkenazi almost completely ignores the role of organizations and social movements in shaping the character of the State of Israel. For her, the emphasis is on worldviews and principles, and less on the concrete actors. Is the Jewish state also democratic? In Diskin’s book, the question does not come up at all. Democracies are very far from perfection, and Israel ably fulfills the basic duty to maintain equality before the law and the sovereignty of the people. However, Shahar and Ashkenazi’s idealistic description of democracy presents the very fact of the Jewish character of the state and its values as being in tension with democracy. The challenge is shown as being even greater in Ashkenazi’s book, which presents a liberal democracy that places the welfare of man at the center, and therefore requires the presentation of the ideal of the Jewish state as absolutely liberal, in order to justify its very definition as democratic. When the Jewish state is described as located at the level of an ideal – there is a tendency to emphasize its advantages and to blur the inevitable differences between its idyllic and its real image, on the one hand, while on the other, even the most positive description is not sufficient to declare definitively that it is democratic. In contrast, Diskin describes at length the traumatic event of Kafr Qasim, presenting it as an example of a deep difficulty in Jewish-Arab relations within the conflict. However, this does not cast a shadow over the Jewish state as categorically being a democracy. Democracy is not perfect, nor is the Jewish state. Its great challenge is in dealing with the violent Jewish-Arab Realism versus Utopianism in Civics Textbooks 77 conflict, and at the same time being engaged in a political and public struggle which is decided by elections. For Shahar and especially for Ashkenazi, liberal democracy, and similarly the Jewish state, are almost perfect. Their goals are the protection of human and civil rights, and particularly those of the weak and vulnerable groups. Unlike textbooks that present a similar picture reflecting offical policy for that subject in the countries studied, Israeli textbooks present different and polarized approaches to the fundamental issue of what democracy is all about. They ask whether it is a realistic regime far from perfection or a utopian ideal which is humanistic, liberal, and universal. Consequently, the Jewish state is presented in one book as having an imperfect regime and challenges which must be met, and in the other two, as either implementing the liberal utopia, or as doubtfully democratic if it is not perfect. The utopian approach sees political struggles being entrusted to the intellectuals and theorists who will decide their outcome, and therefore the most utopian book ignores the interest groups almost completely. However, this is problematic in citizenship education: struggles between political camps and interest groups take place in the real political arena, and the citizens and the students, who are going to become citizens, have a share in shaping the state. In conclusion, we return to the deep and ongoing political controversy over the teaching of civics in Israel in general and particularly surrounding the textbook of the Ministry of Education (Ashkenazi’s book). The fact that the Education Ministry has approved textbooks with completely different orientations, realistic and utopian, evinces a failure in determining any policy on the subject. In order to restore the subject of civics to the consensus, the Ministry of Education must abandon the pretense of turning the subject of civics into teaching a new “language”, and return to realism. In line with Churchill, it is advisable to teach the children of the Jewish state that the vision of the prophets has not yet been fully realized, and Israeli democracy is far from perfect, like all the other democracies that we know. 78 Hadar Lipshits

References

Avnon, D. (2006). Why Israeli democracy lacks a developed civic tongue. In D. Avnon (Ed.), Civic language in Israel (pp. 1–20). Jerusalem, Israel: Magnes [Hebrew].

Ben-Rafael Galanti, S., & Lekfovitz, A. (2014). Textbooks in teaching civics: Checks and balances between “Jewish State” and “Democracy”. In N. Naveh & Y. Harel (Eds.), Gate keepers of civics: The voices of civics pedagogues (pp. 11–35). Kadima, Israel: Reches [Hebrew].

Bricker, D. C. (1989). Classroom life as civic education: Individual achievement and student cooperation in schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Chilo, M., & Ian, D. (2015). Citizenship education in civics textbooks in the Japanese junior high school curriculum. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 35(2), 153–175.

Geiger, Y. (2009). Civics studies: Education or one-way indoctrination? Jerusalem, Israel: The Institute for Strategic Studies [Hebrew].

Gonzales, M. H., Riedel, E., Williamson, I., Avery, P. G., Sullivan, J. L., & Bos, A. (2004). Variations of citizenship education: A content analysis of rights, obligations, and participation concepts in high school civics textbooks. Theory and Research in Social Education, 32(3), 301–325.

Hebert, Y. M., & Wilkinson, L. (2002). Analysis of models of democratic citizenship. In Y. M. Hebert (Ed.), Citizenship in transformation in Canada (pp. 249–257). Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.

Kremnitzer, M. (2016). The new civics textbook arouses revulsion. Haaretz, August 11, 2016 [Hebrew].

Labaree, F. (1997). Public goods, private goods: The American struggle over educational goals. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 39–81.

Lipshits, H. M. (2016). Stop the indoctrination, go back to the subject matter. Realism versus Utopianism in Civics Textbooks 79

Gilui Daat, 10, 179–190 [Hebrew].

McCartney, A. R. M., Bennion, E. A., & Simpson, D. (2013). Teaching civic engagement: From student to active citizen. Washington, DC: American Political Science Association.

Menefee-Libey, D. (2015). High school civics textbooks: What we know versus what we teach about American politics and public policy. Journal of Political Science Education, 11(4), 422–442.

Neumann, R. (2012). Socialism in high school social studies textbooks. The Social Studies, 103(1), 31–38.

Pinson, H. (2013). From a Jewish and democratic state to a Jewish state period: An analysis of modifications to the civics textbook. Report written for Dirassat and the Association for Civil Rights. Retrieved from www.dirasat-aclp.org/ arabic/files/Pinson_Report_Dirasat_ACRI_Oct2013.pdf

Schumpeter, J. A. ([1942] 2008). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Scott, W. & Suh, Y. (2015). Standardizing the essential knowledge, skills, and attitudes for democratic life: A content analysis of Virginia standards of learning and social studies textbooks. The Social Studies, 106, 92–103.

Endnotes

1 Virtù is a concept theorized by Niccolo Machiavelli, referring mainly to the martial spirit and ability of a population or a leader, but also encompassing the various traits necessary for maintenance of the state. 2 “Extreme” reflects a party that deviates from 75% of the parliament’s members at the center of the political spectrum. Between 1992 and 2013, Meretz was in the 12% of the left wing. 3 The Knesset Education Committee, 22.12.2015, “Substantive Changes in 80 Hadar Lipshits

Teaching Civics”, 24.5.2016; Publication of the Civics textbook – Follow- up Meeting. Special Committee for the Transparency and Accessibility of Government Information, 1.2.2015, “Contradictions in Ministry of Education Reports concerning the new civics textbook”. 4 15.5.2017, Naftali Bennet, Minister of Education in the Knesset: “Look at this absurdity. Yael Guron approved the same civics textbook for which you, on the left, are attacking me. But who approved it? Guron, for whom Prime Minister Netanyahu is attacking me. So I am positioned between Prime Minister Netanyahu and Meretz”. 5 Neumann (2012) presented a somewhat different description of the textbooks, for teaching the subject of socialism. 6 In the discussion we used Diskin’s (2011) definitions. Citizens’ rights are a partial group of human rights, which relate to the individual as part of the society in which he lives, such as freedom of expression and freedom of religion. Civil rights are the political rights of citizens – the right to vote and to be elected.

About the Author

Dr. Hadar Lipshits is a staff member of Orot Israel College of Education. During the years 2010 to 2015, he served as a member of the committee on the curriculum for the subject of civics in the Ministry of Education. Lipshits headed a public committee on Jewish religious service and authored its conclusions in the form of a community model. His research focuses on education policies and budgeting in Israel.