Recognizing Bias when Israel is in the Headlines

Misinformation:

• For young people: False information that is spread, regardless of whether there is intent to mislead.  
• For adults: False/misleading information that is typically believed by its promoters to be true, usually not deliberate or intended to mislead (i.e. sharing a piece of info on social media that you believe is true, but it's not)

Disinformation:  

• For young people: False information, which is intended to mislead, especially propaganda by a government organization to a rival power or the media.
• For adults: False/misleading information that is deliberately crafted and spread in order to sow division or doubt, and usually done with a financial, social or political incentive in mind (i.e. Russian disinformation campaigns during the Cold War, or even today). 

While violence is taking place, especially far away, unintentional misinformation should be expected. Early reports of violent incidents and acts of war are incomplete, and details may emerge later that complicate or correct previous reports.  

First-person eye-witness accounts of violence are often viewed through a lens of trauma, and investigations may later prove that events took place differently.

Scapegoating is the act of blaming an individual or group for something based on that person or group’s identity when the person or group is not responsible. Bias, prejudicial thinking and discriminatory acts can lead to scapegoating.  

• When Israel is in the news, the pattern of scapegoating Jewish people and groups often follows, showing up as placing all blame on Israel and even justifying violence towards Jewish and/or Israeli people. 
• Throughout history, Jewish people have been seen as scapegoats for a range of problems faced by communities and society, and the blame assigned to Jewish people has been used to justify discrimination, including exclusion of or violence against Jewish people.  
• Additionally, when Israel is in the news, bias against Muslim people, the religion of Islam and majority-Muslim countries tends to increase. Such scapegoating often takes the form of collectively blaming all Muslim people for the conflict, as well as reinforcing the stereotype that Islam is an inherently violent religion. 

A stereotype is an oversimplified generalization about a person or group without regard for individual differences.  

• When Israel is in the headlines, common stereotypes about Jewish people are often applied to Israel or by grouping all Jewish people together.  
• Two stereotypes that have historic roots are the false belief that Jews kidnap and/or kill non-Jewish children (commonly referred to as blood libel charges), and the false belief that Jews are inherently untrustworthy. These stereotypes have been shared for thousands of years, which means that even well-intentioned people might accidentally absorb and share this belief when discussing current events in Israel.  
• Stereotypes about Muslim people are also stirred up, such as the false belief that Muslim people or the religion of Islam is inherently or especially violent. Such ideas can be communicated in speech, news headlines, social media and more.  

Exclusion is the act of deliberately separating, avoiding or isolating a person or group based on their identity, denying them the belonging, opportunity and connection afforded to others. It shows up as social avoidance, ostracism or the systematic sidelining of individuals from communities, institutions and everyday life.

• When geopolitical conflicts in the Middle East are in the headlines, there is a tendency for people to want to “pick sides” and identify a side that are the “heroes” and a side that are the “villains.” When this happens, people may sometimes justify excluding or name-calling others who disagree with them.  
• When it comes to conversations about Israel, Jewish people who live outside of Israel are often asked to take a stance on the politics or current events, and some challenge Jewish people to either support Zionism or support anti-Zionism. Some even wrongly challenge Jewish people to answer for Israel’s actions. 
  • For most Jewish people, Zionism or some form of connection to Israel is part of their identity, a concept that may relate to religious or spiritual practices, cultural and familial connections or social and political beliefs.  
• Suggesting that Jewish people should be excluded or targeted because of their actual or perceived perspective on Israel is unfair and based on antisemitic beliefs.

As a political or social measure, dehumanization is intended to change the manner in which a person or group of people are perceived, reducing the target group to objects or beings not worthy of human rights.

• When any type of violence is in the news, there is a tendency for individuals and groups to use strong language to describe what is happening. Sometimes this is happening because people are feeling strong emotions, and sometimes people use language to generate strong emotions in others. It’s important to watch out for language the dehumanizes individuals and groups and encourages thinking in terms of “us” vs. “them.” Referring to individuals or groups as animals, barbarians, savages, vermin, pests, monsters or other terms can unconsciously communicate the idea that some people are less human and therefore less deserving of protection and safety than other people. 

Oversimplification is the act of reducing a person or group to an overly simple, sweeping generalization that ignores individual differences and lived experience.

• Part of the cognitive process of learning is supplementing information that one already knows with new information. While this is a normal and useful brain pattern, it can also come with risks.  
• The history of the state of Israel and the broader region spans many thousands of years and involves many different groups of people. Saying that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is just like any other region’s history or conflict is inaccurate, counterproductive, and can be hurtful.  
• Certain words or phrases, such as “settler colonialism” and “indigenous,” represent complicated concepts and may mean different things to different people; when used inaccurately or with the intention to oversimplify or scapegoat, conceptual terms can be hurtful and misleading.

When you hear biased language, the first thing to do is to interrupt it immediately so it doesn’t escalate. Bias can lead to more bias!  

• You can say, “Ouch! You might not realize it but that comment hurts,” to let students know that biased language about anyone is hurtful to you and the classroom environment.  
• You can also create a pause in the classroom discussion by saying, “Whoa. I’m hearing strong language. Let’s take a break to write a few sentences or draw about what we just heard.”  
• Consider using yourself as an example to interrupt bias, such as by saying, “I'm feeling my body get stressed as we discuss this, and if I shared an identity with the group we are discussing right now, I might feel unwelcome.” Use the pause to consider next steps and allow students to reflect on the impact of the language they’re hearing.  

If there are students who were directly targeted by the biased comments, or students who you think might have been harmfully impacted, take time for individual check-ins.  

• Avoid putting students on the spot or assuming that you know how students are feeling; instead, ask them, “How are you feeling? Is there anything you need?”  
• Be sure to let students know that you care for them and want them to feel safe, and plan to check in again later if they want. This time can also be used to check in with the student who made the biased comment.  
• Depending on the age of the student and the nature of the comment, it may be better to do this privately in a one-on-one conversation.  
  • Ask open-ended questions to better understand what the student meant and where their ideas originated.  
  • Help the student to see the impact that bias can have on the classroom and offer redirection.
  • It’s okay to validate strong feelings that may be driving a students’ biases—feeling strongly in response to violence in the world is appropriate—while still reminding that student that they can process and communicate those feelings in ways that are safe for the classroom environment.  
• Depending on the nature of the comment and the age of the students, it may be appropriate to connect with family members or caregivers and let them know what happened.  

Revisit the classroom rules or community agreements, especially any specific guidelines that are relevant to the conversation.  

• Invite students to identify a community agreement that is most needed right now and ask if there are new agreements that should be added at this time. 
• Caution against creating guidelines that restrict discussion of certain topics or state what not to do. Instead, create guidelines that tell students what they can do to challenge biases in themselves and the environment.
• Consider guidelines such as: “Listen to understand rather than to respond,” “Speak from your own perspective,” “Challenge ideas not classmates” or “Accept and expect that we don’t have all the answers.”

After the class or day is over, take some time to consider what educational or community-building experiences students may need in this moment.  

• Ask yourself: What skills, knowledge or mindset could help students process or better understand current events? What community, staff or student leaders or groups are well-positioned to use their voices right now? What content may be coming in my curriculum or in the media students are consuming that may trigger strong emotional reactions?
• Make a plan for your own professional learning about antisemitism, anti-Muslim bias or other forms of biases that are coming up and reach out to other educators and staff who may be able to help.  
• Recognize that anti-bias learning and practices are an ongoing journey, and a long-term plan might be more impactful than a one-off lesson or program.