BETWEEN OPENNESS AND ALLEGIANCE: HOW DO HISTORY TEACHERS COPE WITH INFORMATION THAT DOES NOT CORRESPOND TO THE HEGEMONIC ZIONIST NARRATIVE / בין פתיחות לדבקות: ביטויים של צנזורה עצמית בהוראת ההיסטוריה במערכת החינוך הישראלית

This paper views the education system as a central agent by which societies construct, transmit, maintain and reinforce their narratives of collective memory to younger generations. Particularly, it focuses on Israeli education system and its role in imparting collective narratives of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In this context, the study examines the attitudes of teachers in state and state-religious educational systems toward the teaching of the history of the conflict. More specifically, it investigates whether and how history teachers in both systems use practices of self-censorship, as one of the mechanisms that significantly influence the maintenance of conflict-supportive narratives. The findings show that teachers participated in the study did not choose to self-censor contradictory contents to the hegemonic Zionist narrative. Instead, they proposed creative and sophisticated framing methods and skewed interpretations, which sustained themes of the Zionistic narrative. It follows, then, that although alternative information that contradicts themes central to the hegemonic national narrative is not omitted from the educational discourse in the classroom, the imparting of contradictory content is carried in such a way that actually assures the dominance of the Zionist narrative. This approach was expressed in both groups, but was more salient, diverse, and sophisticated amongst state-religious teachers. Between the lines, the paper deals with the dilemma that teachers face as to whether adhere to the role of historical education in reinforcing national allegiance and instilling narratives that encourages mobilization for the conflict; or, rather, nurture independent and critical thinking of the students, including by presenting counter narratives that may open their mind to other perspectives. The differences between these two educational approaches, as well as the implications of the findings, are further discussed