Though normally I would consider myself to be a bit of a Lookjed "lurker," this is an important enough question that I feel the need to contribute. I hope my desire for anonymity might be respected, as I am but a young voice, not a respected and established leader in our community as are many of the esteemed Lookjed contributors.
I attended a Modern Orthodox Yeshiva high school, where "Zionism" was a full year course, generally taken by the majority of students, usually in Junior year. The curriculum had essentially three components: books and excerpts, a Zionist history written by the teacher, and free-flowing lecture on his experiences in Israel.
The goal was to inculcate students with a specific ideology vis a vis Zionism. The roots of the movement were found in Tanach and the early leaders were Alkali, Kalischer and Hess; Forged in Fury was required reading; and the teacher served for a time in the IDF, and occasionally suggested in a Brooklyn accent that "if the Arabs want to rumble, let's rumble."
Yet if the goal of the class was to deeply ingrain ("brainwash"
the students with the desired Zionist ideology, it failed. Simply put, teenage students cannot be force-fed ideas. Facts can be memorized, but a path into one's own heritage is not available through 50-minute periods, four times a week. The class was greeted with general apathy, learning for the test, and papers directed to the teacher's biases.
This was precisely what a Zionist education should not do: It should not be rigid, rote, or committed to a particular strain of thinking. Rote breeds contempt and boredom, the sense that the topic is of the same quantity as European History. The specific ideology of the class (in this case an Ichud Le'umi/National Union position) repels the non-political and those with distinct ideological stances. And rigidity meant there was no space for a discussion.
A Zionist education should begin with certain principles. First, Zionism broadly defined means "Jewish Nationalism." Second, that Zionism is a living movement. Third, that Zionist education is an exploration of the student into his or her own identity. Fourth, that the first three points can be disagreed upon without being disagreeable.
The four principles above are obviously a marked departure from the typical high school class, as well as from typical Zionist education. The teacher should begin with an honest presentation of the class and institution as "Zionist," but explicitly allow for the airing of opposing views. Zionism should be presented as a flowering and living movement, not merely a foil for the Israeli-Arab conflict. Debate and argumentative writing should be the major thread leading through the class. For example, an early writing assignment should be "Zionism is Just," followed by a paper "Zionism is Unjust." Moreover, right vs. wrong dichotomies should share space with considerations of costs and benefits.
Yet critical thinking should be the thread running through three broad units: History, Theory, and Present and Future. My high school teacher made a two-fold error: these three units became one, all without an analysis of the issues by the students. Thus, a balanced curriculm is needed, where a voice is given to opposing actors, and even anti-Zionists. This is because certainty is a fragile thing: an untested Zionism is like a toddler with an ice cream, likely to drop the entire cone at the slightest nudge, or at least lose some of the deliciousness to melting.
Imagine my surprise to arrive in my first Middle Eastern studies class, and to begin the history of modern Palestine with the King-Crane Commission (run to Google, brave reader), rather than the Peel Partition plan! Or to hear "sh'tehei reisheit s'michat ge'ulatenu" for the first time in T'fila L'shlom Ha'Medinah! Where was I? I could not get my good 'ol fashioned Religious Zionism anywhere!
Zionism as Hasbarah comes through training. But it is not the high school classroom is not the place for it. Indeed, the classroom is not really the place for exploration of Jewish identity. But done correctly, would students not leave with a faith in themselves, as well as a commitment to the Zionism they have found personally meaningful?
