Knowledge of history, context, and current events determines whether one is able to form their own well-founded opinion on a matter or simply accept others' views unquestioningly. This is especially true for complex topics – such as Israel. CSI spoke with Frank Langner, headmaster of the Friedrich-Ebert-Gymnasium in Bonn and a member of the German-Israeli Textbook Commission, about curricula and the challenges of providing balanced knowledge in schools. The questions were posed by Dana Nowak.
Dana Nowak: Mr. Langner, you are a member of the German-Israeli Textbook Commission. What does this commission do?
Frank Langner: This special textbook commission is composed of German and Israeli representatives. It has three sections: history, geography, and social studies. I belong to the social studies section. Each section examined how the other country treats the partner country in its textbooks.
What prompted the establishment of such a commission? Were there problems with textbooks?
This is now the second German-Israeli textbook commission. The first published its final report in the 1980s. It is always useful to review the situation after a certain period: Has anything changed? Or are the findings still the same? However, textbook publishers have repeatedly faced criticism for the way they portray Israel. Therefore, there was also a current reason to examine whether proposals could be made in this area. The commission was established by the two governments.
That's an incredible amount of material for a commission like that to review…
Yes, but ultimately it's quite manageable. Many books are eliminated because they don't address Israel at all, at least not in the social studies section. In history textbooks, the Holocaust naturally plays a role in all the relevant grade levels. In the end, only a few books remain. Many of these cover only a small aspect; they often don't even focus on Israel in general, but rather on a specific topic, for example, world peace. In this context, the nuclear powers, and thus Israel, then come up. Each member of the commission reviews the chapters on Israel and then records their initial impressions.
Things get interesting when you sit down with the other side. Will they share your assessment? In social studies, the differences weren't so significant. But in geography, the sensitivity on the Israeli side was often higher than on the German side. There's a lot of map material there, and the question of how certain regions should be named kept coming up. Should it say Palestine, or, for example, terms that originate from biblical Israel?
The second textbook commission concluded in 2015 that Israel is primarily presented in the context of the Middle East conflict and that the portrayal is sometimes unbalanced. Do you have a specific example of this?
A typical example can be found in the social studies textbook "Dialog Sowi" for North Rhine-Westphalia. One chapter deals with the Middle East conflict and conducts a conflict analysis. This isn't entirely bad, of course. The detailed listing of conflict areas, such as the issues of water or the so-called right of return for Palestinians, is well done. Ultimately, however, students only learn about Israel within the context of the Middle East conflict. As a textbook commission, we would have preferred greater thematic breadth and a certain depth overall.
A picture is worth a thousand words, and these are very expressive pictures in this book…
Yes, the authors clearly considered how to capture children's attention. This led to the David-and-Goliath motif. Israel appears militarily strong and martial, while the Palestinian side is portrayed quite differently. I don't believe the subsequent analysis is suitable for dispelling the initial emotional impression that has taken root in the children's minds. The image of Israel as Goliath and the Palestinians as David frequently appears in the media – this perspective cannot be ignored and must be addressed.
But methodologically, one can certainly question this: Does such a comparison really need to appear right at the beginning of a chapter? Wouldn't it be more sensible to introduce it later, once some background knowledge has been established? The crucial question is always: Do the authors succeed in maintaining a neutral stance? Especially in political education, it's essential that multiple perspectives are presented. Students should be familiar with different viewpoints and be able to weigh them independently. For us, the question has always been: Is this multi-perspective approach achieved – or does the authors' personal bias shine through?
What exactly did the Israeli colleagues criticize about German school textbooks?
The main issue is the strong focus on the Middle East conflict. The Holocaust is widely discussed, and occasionally the founding of the State of Israel and the surrounding armed conflicts are also found in textbooks, but overall there is a lack of thematic diversity and depth.
And conversely – what did the German representatives criticize about Israeli school textbooks?
In social studies, the perspective on Germany is positive – it is seen as a democratic state with a certain empathy for Israel. However, the political system of the Federal Republic is hardly addressed. The issue of migration, which strongly influences both countries, also plays virtually no role. In geography, on the other hand, there are interesting points of connection, because many young Israelis like to travel to Berlin. There, urban geography is often discussed.
The commission issued many recommendations ten years ago. Have these been implemented?
A ten-year conference was held at the end of 2025, for which samples were analyzed. There is now greater clarity, particularly regarding the disclosure of sources. More thought is also being given to the selection of images. I believe that a comparison like the one we had in the aforementioned book "Dialog Sowi" is no longer found in current textbooks. More attention is also being paid to establishing a certain multi-perspective approach. However, much has not changed, for example, the thematic breadth. Israel is still not considered from an economic or civil society perspective.
What is the reason for this? Is it the textbooks or rather the curricula?
A look at the curricula shows that addressing such topics is not out of the question in many German states. This raises the question of whether education policy should promote this. The reason Germany and Israel are so closely linked is ultimately the Holocaust. And children are increasingly historicizing it. The challenge lies in keeping the connections to the present day alive.
Then, on October 7, 2023, Hamas attacked Israel. How did your school deal with this?
The topic was immediately present – not least because Bonn is an international city and many of our students have Palestinian roots. Therefore, we prepared materials for the upper and middle school levels. There were differing opinions among the staff, as well as some anxieties. How would the students react to the topic? Could I adequately represent the perspectives of both sides? Among the students, the Palestinian perspective was more strongly articulated.
We also had an information session with a German-Israeli journalist from Berlin. He tried to explain why Israel behaves the way it does and what historical context led to the events of October 7th. The concluding discussion revealed that the students are heavily influenced by social media, where many reports lack sources, leaving their origins and authenticity unclear.
It's difficult for students to gain a balanced perspective. While it's perfectly legitimate for a student to say, "I stand in solidarity with the Palestinians," at a grammar school, one must be able to present the other side of the story objectively. We made a genuine effort to find someone to report from a Palestinian perspective. However, we were unsuccessful, because a school is about information, not propaganda. Conversely, if only one side is represented, it quickly creates the impression that the school is advocating German state pro-Israel policy.
The number of antisemitic incidents has risen dramatically worldwide and in Germany since October 7th. Has this been noticeable at your school as well?
Something has changed. You can see it, for example, in the stickers you find in the school restrooms. It's not as if we've had any acute conflicts, though. However, hardly any of the students seem to know who at the school is Jewish, because we don't have Jewish religious instruction here. None of the Jewish students wear a kippah either. At our recent conference on textbook recommendations, however, a teacher from a Jewish high school in Berlin spoke about the extremely difficult situation students have, for example, about even showing their religion anymore. It would be presumptuous to say that just because it hasn't taken hold here, there isn't any antisemitism.
Is the topic of antisemitism actually part of the curriculum in German schools?
It is covered in various subjects – such as religion, philosophy, social studies, and literature classes. However, there is no mandatory cross-curricular curriculum.
After October 7th, hatred and incitement against Israel and Judaism were particularly evident on social media, and many false reports circulated. Is what is currently taught in schools about Israel and the Middle East conflict sufficient?
The question is difficult to answer because it depends on the perspective. From the perspective of the special relationship between Germany and Israel, I would say it's insufficient; a different emphasis is needed. However, expanding one topic inevitably means cutting back elsewhere—a fundamental problem in school education. Quantitatively, little can be changed; the crucial factor is quality. And that brings us back to the recommendations of the textbook commission: that the topic of Israel should be addressed more broadly and not just the conflict. For example, Israel could be considered when examining economic or civil society developments.
This brings us to the exciting question: How can the recommendations of their commission be implemented?
Textbook publishers do take up suggestions, but not everything is implemented. This is partly due to the requirements in the curricula. More needs to happen at the state education ministries level. The issue of antisemitism, in particular, is not being adequately addressed. The Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs (KMK) could provide impetus here. At the same time, anxieties among teachers must be taken seriously.
Many teachers fear that discussions could escalate. Yet schools have qualified political science teachers who could offer professional development – often, there simply isn't enough time. While antisemitism is also connected to the conflict in Israel, it is also a form of inappropriate human interaction. This is a crucial area that the education system in a democratic state must prioritize. This is being neglected, and as a result, democracy is undermining itself. As schools, we have the opportunity to reach all children once again. Unfortunately, this opportunity is not being consistently utilized. I would like to see more courage at the educational policy level to prioritize this vital issue of antisemitism.
Thank you so much for the conversation!
This article first appeared in our newspaper "Israelaktuell," issue 144. You can order the newspaper here . We would also be happy to send you several copies for distribution.
