Saudi Textbooks Declared Free of Antisemitism. What the 136-Book Review Found—and What It Did Not
An education watchdog says Saudi Arabia removed the remaining antisemitic passages it had tracked across 136 textbooks. The reforms are substantial, but “all content” depends on the books, definitions and methodology—and maps still omit Israel while the Holocaust remains absent.
Saudi Arabia has removed the remaining antisemitic passages tracked in its current school curriculum, according to a new review by the education watchdog IMPACT-se. The finding is potentially important for both classrooms and Middle East diplomacy.
The viral version—“Saudi Arabia removes all antisemitic content from school textbooks”—is broader than the evidence.
IMPACT-se reviewed 136 humanities textbooks used in the 2025–26 school year. The organization says examples it had previously classified as antisemitic were deleted, including religious passages portraying Judaism and other faiths through demeaning physical metaphors, claims that Jews were destined for hell, collective blame narratives and descriptions of Jewish influence as responsible for the Ottoman Empire’s collapse.
The review also found language changes around Israel. Expressions such as “Zionist enemy” or “Israeli enemy” were reportedly replaced in some passages with “Israeli occupation.” Lessons included more positive references to peace agreements, protection of noncombatants and interfaith engagement.
These are not trivial edits. Textbooks help define which groups children encounter as individual human beings and which are presented as permanent enemies. Removing collective religious condemnation can reduce the state-sponsored reproduction of prejudice even if political conflict continues.
But who made the assessment matters. IMPACT-se is an Israel-focused organization that evaluates curricula against standards it associates with peace and tolerance. Its researchers may be careful, but the group is not a neutral international certification body and its categories can be debated. Saudi authorities did not, in the reporting reviewed here, publish an independent line-by-line audit declaring every possible antisemitic reference removed.
The word “all” also needs boundaries. It may mean all examples previously identified by the watchdog in the 136 books reviewed. It cannot automatically cover every regional edition, teacher guide, supplemental worksheet, classroom lecture, older book still in circulation or digital resource. Nor does removing explicit hostility guarantee that students receive accurate and complete education about Jewish history or modern Israel.
Important gaps remain. Reporting on the review says Israel is still absent from maps. The Holocaust is not included in World War II coverage. Saudi textbooks continue to support the Palestinian cause and criticize Israeli occupation. Those positions are not inherently antisemitic; criticism of a state’s policies is different from hostility toward Jews as a people. The difficult editorial work is to keep that distinction clear.
Supporters of the reforms may see a gradual process designed to avoid domestic backlash. Saudi Arabia’s religious and educational institutions cannot be rewritten overnight without political consequences. Incremental changes may be more durable than a sudden curriculum imported from outside.
Critics may see strategic branding. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has promoted economic modernization, tourism and greater international investment while consolidating political authority. Cleaner textbooks can improve Saudi Arabia’s reputation in Washington and Europe and prepare public opinion for possible normalization with Israel. Education reform may be sincere, geopolitical or both.
Palestinians may ask whether tolerance language is being used to soften resistance to Israeli policy without delivering statehood or rights. Israelis may ask whether changes in terminology will survive a new regional war. Jewish communities may welcome removal of hateful content while questioning why Holocaust education and Israel’s existence on maps remain unresolved.
There is a second tension inside the reported curriculum. Some overtly antisemitic material disappeared while a passage linking jihad to obedience to the king reportedly reappeared. That could reflect an effort to channel religious authority toward the state rather than eliminate militarized concepts altogether. Reform can liberalize one area while reinforcing political loyalty in another.
How should success be measured? Not only by deleted sentences. Researchers could survey whether students recognize antisemitic stereotypes, understand the difference between Jews, Israelis and the Israeli government, and can discuss Palestinian suffering without collective hatred. Teachers need training because an altered paragraph can be undermined—or improved—by classroom interpretation.
Comparative transparency would help. Saudi Arabia could publish change logs, allow independent researchers access to all editions and explain why individual passages were revised. IMPACT-se could make coding rules, disagreements and sampling limits easy to inspect. Other states, including Israel and Palestinian authorities, should be subject to the same scrutiny rather than using curriculum analysis only against rivals.
The fair conclusion is cautiously positive. A substantial set of documented changes appears to have removed material that should not have been in classrooms. The evidence does not justify pretending every prejudice has vanished or every historical omission has been corrected.
Is this a genuine cultural shift, a normalization signal or reputation management? The answer may be all three. The real test is whether Saudi students encounter fewer collective enemies and more verifiable history—and whether the reforms remain when regional politics becomes less convenient.
### What to watch next
Watch for publication of the full IMPACT-se methodology, Saudi ministry change logs, independent reviews of regional and digital materials, addition of Holocaust education and accurate maps, and teacher-training evidence. Future editions will show whether reform is structural or tied to a diplomatic moment.