What the Record Shows About Textbooks Used in Gaza Schools

The first thing to say clearly is that this debate gets framed too loosely. Gaza’s schoolbooks were not simply “Hamas textbooks.” The core curriculum in Gaza schools came from the Palestinian Authority. UNRWA schools used that same curriculum. So the real question is not whether every teacher or student thinks the same thing. The real question is what the approved books and class materials contain.

On that narrower question, the record is strong enough to justify concern. It is not strong enough to justify lazy slogans about every classroom or every child.

Which curriculum is at issue

UNRWA does not write a separate curriculum for Gaza. Its schools use host-country books and then review them against U.N. neutrality rules. In Gaza and the West Bank, that has meant Palestinian Authority books. UNRWA’s digital learning platform says so directly.¹

That means two issues must stay separate:

1. what the Palestinian Authority curriculum says; and
2. what UNRWA does when those books clash with U.N. neutrality rules.

What independent reviews found

The key non-advocacy review is the 2021 EU-commissioned study by the Georg Eckert Institute, a German academic institute that specializes in textbook research. The study did not call the curriculum uniformly hateful or empty of normal school content. It did make one core point. This is not a made-up controversy. Even a cautious academic review found serious, recurring problems in the material.²

The more recent U.N.-commissioned Colonna review came out in April 2024. It was broadly protective of UNRWA as an agency. It still admitted that books with problem content were being used in some UNRWA schools. The review cited a recent UNRWA rapid review. That review found 3.85% of pages had issues that clashed with U.N. values or the U.N. stance. It listed the patterns. Maps that erase Israel outside history lessons. Jerusalem called the capital of Palestine. Cities inside Israel called Palestinian cities. The phrase “Zionist occupation” used for Israel.³⁴

That matters. It moves the debate beyond dueling advocacy reports. Even the U.N.-backed neutrality review accepted that the problem was real, though it called it limited rather than total.

What U.S. oversight found

The U.S. Government Accountability Office added a second layer in 2026. Its report on West Bank and Gaza education aid found that UNRWA and the State Department had ways to spot and handle problem content. But State’s reports to Congress had big gaps before funding ended. The U.S. oversight problem was not that nobody had noticed. The problem was that monitoring and reporting were patchy and uneven.⁵

That finding does not prove the curriculum is beyond repair. It does show that donor governments had reason to keep pushing for better review, better records, and clearer reform goals.

What can be said carefully

The fair version is this:

• books used in Gaza schools have included recurring anti-Israel, and at times antisemitic, content;
• maps and place-names often erase Israel or replace it with a single “Palestine”;
• some materials frame violent “resistance” in ways donors and neutrality reviewers have ruled unacceptable; and
• UNRWA’s own safeguards have not fully fixed the problem.

What the evidence does not support: that every page teaches hate, that every child takes in the message the same way, or that the curriculum alone explains later support for violence. Schools matter. So do family, media, political leaders, and the lived experience of war. Curriculum is one part of a wider political culture, not a full explanation for it.

Why donors keep coming back to this issue

The reason this question keeps surfacing in Brussels and Washington is simple. Curriculum is one of the few parts of the conflict that donors can realistically press institutions to change. That is why the European Commission’s July 2024 Letter of Intent with the Palestinian Authority included an education-reform track. Later Commission answers also described textbook revision as part of the agreed reform plan.⁶⁷

You do not have to believe curriculum explains everything to believe it matters. Official books are an institutional choice. If donors pay for education, asking what the books say is not extremism. It is basic due diligence.

Bottom line

The strongest case is not “all Gazan schools teach hate.” The strongest case is this. The Palestinian Authority curriculum used in Gaza, including in UNRWA schools, has repeatedly carried anti-Israel and antisemitic content. It has also carried content that normalizes violence. That content was serious enough to draw lasting concern from academic reviewers. It drew concern from U.N. neutrality reviewers. It drew concern from U.S. oversight bodies. It drew concern from European funders. That is a real problem even when described with care.

Sources