Why Do We Turn a School Dispute into an Identity Issue?

Writer: Taher Taysir Al-Masri

I follow with concern the ongoing discussion about the Open Paul VI School in Bethlehem, not only because of the disagreement related to the school's system and wearing the hijab, but also because the discussion has begun to shift from an educational and rights issue open to dialogue to a more dangerous space; a space that classifies people and institutions according to their religious identities. This is precisely what the Palestinian society does not need.

For more than five decades, the Open Paul VI School has provided specialized educational and rehabilitation services for deaf and hard-of-hearing children, and over the years, it has welcomed Palestinian children from different religious backgrounds. What is important here is not the religious affiliation of the institution, but its societal function: educating children, rehabilitating them, and helping them to integrate and participate fully in society. From this perspective, we should discuss the issue.

A modern society is not built on the question of who is Muslim and who is Christian? Nor on determining an individual's rights or status based on their religious affiliation. A modern society is based on citizenship; that is, a person is a citizen first, equal in dignity, rights, and duties, and thereafter can be Muslim or Christian, religious or non-religious, and freely choose their beliefs and personal identity. This is not a stance against religion, but a stance against turning religion into a tool for social and political sorting.

The Palestinian Basic Law has established a clear foundation for this vision. Article (9) states that Palestinians are equal before the law and the judiciary, without discrimination based on religion, gender, color, political opinion, or disability. Article (18) guarantees freedom of belief, worship, and the practice of religious rituals. The equation here is clear; freedom of belief is a right, equality is a right, and no individual's or group's identity should become a basis for discrimination or exclusion.

From here, the issue of the hijab in schools must also be considered. For those who choose it, the hijab is an expression of personal and religious conviction protected by the right to freedom of belief. At the same time, educational institutions, including private ones with a religious background, have internal systems and rules that govern their operations, which should be announced, clear, and compliant with the law. However, neither individual freedom is absolute, nor is the internal system of any institution sacred or non-negotiable.

When there is a conflict between them, the solution is not through incitement, accusations of treason, or invoking religious affiliations, but rather by adhering to the law, principles of necessity and proportionality, non-discrimination, and the best interests of the child, especially when we talk about children with disabilities whose specialized educational options may be limited. This is the discussion we need.

Transforming the issue into a confrontation between a 'Christian school' and 'Muslim students' is, in itself, part of the problem. The school is not less Palestinian because of its Christian background, and the student is not less affiliated with it because she is Muslim. Both operate within a single Palestinian social and legal space. Here, citizenship becomes more than just a word.

Citizenship means that the church, mosque, school, and both public and private institutions all exist within a shared national space, and that the state and law do not ask the citizen about their religion before recognizing their rights. It also means that no group needs the 'tolerance' of the majority to be part of society; because their rights are not derived from the acceptance of others, but from their citizenship and human dignity.

Therefore, the Christian presence in Palestine does not need justification or protection as it is considered the existence of a 'minority'. The Palestinian Christian is not a guest who needs guarantees for their existence, but rather a native citizen and a full partner in history, place, and future, just like the Palestinian Muslim. This point goes far beyond the Paul VI School.

One of the most dangerous indicators of the weakness of societies is their return to sub-identities whenever a Muslim-Christian conflict arises, the son of this city and the son of that one, this sect and that community. Diversity in itself is not a problem; the problem begins when the sub-identity becomes the primary source of loyalty, and a tool for mobilization and polarization, determining who is "us" and who is "them." We have enough divisions.

The Palestinian society faces occupation, settlement, displacement, political division, geographical fragmentation, and immense social and economic pressures. In light of all this, the last thing we need is to create new lines of division within society based on religion.

Therefore, the dispute at the Open School of Paul VI should be addressed as a legal, educational, and civil disagreement. Is the system clear? Is it legal and proportional? Does it respect the rights of the students? Are there alternatives or solutions that serve the interests of the children and respect the nature of the institution? These are legitimate questions, and there can be differences in their answers. However, the illegitimate question is: who will win, the Muslims or the Christians? Because there should not be a battle at all.

What we need is a society that does not ask anyone to abandon their religion or belief, nor allows anyone to impose it on others; a society where differences are managed through law and dialogue, not through mobilization and closed identities. The Palestine we want is not a Palestine of sects, but a Palestine of citizens.

In a state of citizenship, difference is a right, equality is a principle, diversity is a strength, and the law is the common space that protects everyone.