By Robert Cherry, PhD
BROOKLYN, N.Y — The issue of Israeli Arabs and alternative service has been covered prominently recently in the U.S., both as a front page July 11 New York Times story and on the widely-viewed Yahoo! main page. Both stories emphasized those Israeli Arabs who are strongly against participation. The title of a Yahoo! story, “Universal draft a call to arms for Israeli Arabs” suggests that alternative service requirements will be actively opposed by the vast majority of Israeli Arabs. It does note, “Arabs are exempt from compulsory military service but a handful of Arabs do volunteer and say many more would do so if their leaders were not so fiercely opposed.”
However, the story quickly focuses on justifying the position of the leadership by extensively quoting Amal Asa’ad, a Druze former brigadier general. Asa’ad contends that the harsh experience after discharge of Druze who joined the Israeli Army proves that there will be little economic benefit for Arabs who engage in alternative service. A New York Times article also emphasized Israeli Arabs who strongly oppose alternative service.
I just returned from a weeklong fact-finding trip to Israel where I spoke to directors of NGOs committed to improving the economic position of Israeli Arabs, to Arab academicians and to an Arab mayor. These interviews have strengthened my belief that a strong majority of Israeli Arabs are willing to be pragmatic and would go along with national service requirements under reasonable circumstances, such as service within their own often impoverished communities. But this pragmatism is countered by a vocal moralizing minority — many in leadership positions — that will actively oppose alternative service because they are committed to an oppositional political strategy rather than one of constructive engagement. This oppositional leadership rejects opportunities for reformist advances, dwells on historical oppression that they claim is unchanging, and seeks out opportunities to mobilize youth in opposition to the government.
The current Israeli situation is also very similar to how a vocal minority of Cuban Americans has been able to sustain the Cuban embargo even though a growing plurality of Cuban Americans would like to see it ended or reduced. The most vocal control leadership positions and moralize continuously against the evils of the Cuban government. Though a clear majority of Cuban Americans younger than 44 years old favor dramatically reducing the scope of the embargo, they are silent, unwilling to take the scorn (and worse) that they would be subject to if they voiced their less firm views. Indeed, this is exactly the picture that the New York Times has reported for many years. Rather than promoting those intent on maintaining the boycott, the paper has always tried to strengthen the growing number of those who are more pragmatic.
In contrast to how it reports on Cuban-American oppositional groups, the New York Times goes out of its way to justify and highlight Israeli-Arab oppositional groups who attempt to mobilize youth. After pointing out that 62 percent of Israeli Arabs support alternative service, the article never gives voice to this majority that is willing to engage in constructive engagement. The article never mentions that in June, the Council of Arab Mayors conditionally supported alternative service. To mention this would have required the reporter to interview those who supported this declaration. So much for reporting the facts.
Instead, the article immediately segues to oppositional voices. It reports, “A leading Arab community group recently had a poster contest opposing the program. Entries included a large soiled foot captioned, ‘National Service: A Dirty Business,” and a headless woman in an Army uniform over the slogan, ‘Civilian Service: The Way to Erase Identity.’ Hanin Zoabi, a Parliament member from Nazareth, called the proposal to expand service ‘a trap.’”
Most telling, it reports selectively and approvingly of youth opposition: “In Wadi Nisnas, a Haifa neighborhood … four teenagers training a makeshift summer camp marching band on Wednesday pronounced themselves “against, against, against and against” national service for Arabs. ‘It’s against our people,’ said Rozeen Kanboura, 18, who works at a McDonald’s. “We are betraying our homeland, our origins, our history.’ Ayan Abunasra, 13 and indicative of the upbringing of Israeli-Arab youths , said, ‘I don’t feel part of this country.’ ‘Put yourself in our place,’ she said. ‘You’re going to serve a country that occupied your land and your great-grandparents died because of it?’”
A more balanced story would have certainly reported the declaration of the Council of Arab Mayors, certainly would have given more space to those engaged in constructive engagement, and would have noted the severe pressure ordinary Israeli Arabs are under to accede to the oppositional voices in their communities. This would have allowed the reporter to look more closely at the issues related to implementing national services if large numbers of Israeli Arabs participated.
Even more, it might have provided examples of the very significant changes Israeli Arabs and their communities have experienced in their economic position the last few years: industrial parks, entrance into the hi-tech sector, expanded teaching positions in Jewish schools, expanded government employment, etc. The newspaper might have interviewed the mayor of Hura in the Bedouin south on how his community has moved ahead through constructive engagement. In particular, it might have interviewed the Arab mayors of the four largest Arab communities who together with four leading Arab academicians have formed a committee under the direction of Aiman Saif, director of the Authority of Minority Economic Development, housed in the Prime Minister’s Office. This committee will meet consistently with representatives of all the government ministries so that Arab economic development initiatives will be fully coordinated among the many government agencies. This might have led them to conclude that there may now be a critical mass of young Israeli-Arab professionals and other members of a growing middle class that want to move away from oppositional politics to one of constructive engagement. It seems, however, that its uncontrolled hostility to the Netanyahu government continues to shape New York Times reporting.
Cherry is Broeklundian Professor at Brooklyn College