Chapter 11

The Weight of English in Global

Perspective: The Role of English in Israel
Elana Shohamy
Tel Aviv University

Introduction
Similar to most countries in the world today, English in Israel plays a major role,
both as a global and a local language in multiple domains such as business, academia,
media, and education, as well as in daily interactions. English is the language of texts
that students are required to read in academia in most disciplines; it is a language fre-
quently “peppered” in Hebrew oral interactions, especially by youth in urban spaces;
it is a language widely used in the cyber space and the one used in global corporations
and high-technological companies; it is also a language heard in most films and tele-
vision programs accompanied by translations but no dubbing. Finally, it is a language
that all students are required to learn from a very early age of elementary school and
through the end of secondary school; in addition, a high level of English proficiency
is required for admission into higher education institutions. English is the language
that is widely displayed in public spaces, at times along with Hebrew and more rarely
with Arabic; English is to be found also as a single language in names of shops,
advertisements, names of buildings, commercials, announcements, and instructions.
According to a study by Ben Rafael, Shohamy, Amara, and Trumper-Hecht (2006)
that documented the languages displayed in public spaces (e.g., linguistic landscape),
in Israel English is displayed almost as frequently as Hebrew, the dominant and offi-
cial language, in areas where Jews reside. This is in stark contrast to the absence of
English in public places in towns and villages where Arabs live; in these areas, Arabic,
the other official language of Israel, is the main language of communication as well
as the medium of instruction in all Arab schools. Arabic in these areas is dominant in
public spaces, along with Hebrew; yet English is hardly to be found. The patterns

Review of Research in Education

March 2014, Vol. 38, pp. 273-289
DOI: 10.3102/0091732X13509773
© 2014 AERA. http://rre.aera.ne

273
274    Review of Research in Education, 38

that emerge indicate that English, a nonofficial language in Israel, plays an important
role mostly in Jewish areas but in Arab communities, which make up 20% of the
Israeli population, Hebrew is viewed as a “global” language; English, a compulsory
language for all Arab students in schools from a very early age, is only minimally
represented in public spaces. Furthermore, the level of English proficiency reached by
Arab students is substantially lower than that of the Jews. Arabs invest most of their
“language-learning energies” in learning Hebrew and in Modern Standard Arabic
(MSA); English comes last.
Thus, although English plays a central role among those born into Hebrew fami-
lies, it does not have the same status, role, and priority among groups who are born
into different languages such as Arabs as well as immigrants, whose first priority is
to acquire Hebrew, the lingua franca within Israel. Countries are not homogenous
entities, and a theme such as “the role of English in Israel” needs to be analyzed
and interpreted within the diverse communities and spaces in varied sociolinguistic
realities. Indeed, current views of language policy do not view policies in homog-
enous terms but rather as complex phenomena embedded in multiple factors and
layers (Johnson, 2010) that require a deeper level of study about the interconnections
among languages, communities, and spaces. Thus, a study of English in a nation such
as Israel requires a focus into the multiple complexities associated with history, ideol-
ogy, politics, religion, economics, education, law, and geography. English, the “for-
eign visitor” and the “current player” in Israeli society, is embedded in those complex
factors and realities. It is within this complexity that I will address here a set of factors
regarding the multiple roles of English in Israeli education and society in an attempt
to understand the following issues: How did it come to be? How is English connected
to other languages? How does it relate to different groups, communities, and people?
How accessible is English to all? To what extent does the presence of English support
and/or challenge multilingualism? In our book, The Languages of Israel (Spolsky &
Shohamy, 1999), we referred to English as “everybody’s second language”; yet in this
chapter I raise doubts as to whether English is in fact “everybody’s language.” If it is
not, who are those who are left behind, who are those who cannot connect to English
and whose access to education and employment is being denied? Does English per-
petuate justice and equality? How is it manifested in the education systems? How
does the dominance of English affect the linguistic diversity of minorities and immi-
grants? How do the ideologies, policies, and practices associated with the revival of
Hebrew affect or how are they affected by the power of English and its high status.
The aim of this chapter then is to point to the complexities of the English lan-
guage in Israel from a critical perspective, its global language status, and the man-
ners in which it affects and interacts with a variety of local issues. The main focus is
on how the presence of a global language, like English, affects a given sociolinguis-
tic reality, bringing about specific consequences in terms of people’s participation,
equality, justice, and rights. Addressing these questions and issues will proceed along
two main themes: The first is a historical and current perspective of the phases that
English went through in Israel parallel to the revival of Hebrew and its accompanying
ideologies; the second is the impact of the power of English on other languages and
 Shohamy: The Role of English in Israel    275    

people, especially on Arabs, who use a different community language, and on immi-
grants, who arrive in Israel with home languages other than Hebrew. These groups are
expected to acquire both Hebrew and English in order to participate and function in
the society in education and employment.

English and Hebrew: Complementary Rivalry

The relationship between English and Hebrew has been complex and dynamic
and hence needs to be interpreted within the history of Israel. At the end of the 19th
century, when Jews started to immigrate to the area, still under the Othman regime,
Hebrew was constructed as an ideological language as a symbol of a new national col-
lective identity. This continued during the years that the British ruled over Palestine,
from 1917 to 1947, the mandate era. During most of these years, English was
accepted as a language of the British government, whereas those who immigrated
used the various languages of the places and communities from where they came in
Europe, the United States, as well as Middle Eastern countries—German, Polish,
Russian, Arabic, Turkish, and a variety of Jewish languages such as Yiddish, Ladino,
Jewish Arabic, and so on. In those days, English was not viewed as a meaningful
rival to the revival of Hebrew like some of the other languages of the immigrants,
especially Yiddish, German, and Polish. The British implemented a trilingual official
language policy with English as the government language, Hebrew as the language
of the Jewish community, and Arabic for the Arab communities. Still, given that
English was the language associated with the British regime that Jews wanted to over-
throw in the process of reaching independence, it was viewed by some as a symbol
of colonialization. It is mostly toward the end of the mandate years that the English
language became more closely associated with the British rule. Indeed, one of the first
acts of the Israeli Government after reaching independence was to remove English
from the official list as an overt act of independence from the colonial rule, leaving
Hebrew and Arabic as the two official languages. Although English in the 1950s was
constructed negatively as the language of the colonializer and as a threat to the revival
of Hebrew, it regained prestige, mostly in the 1960s, when it became associated with
the United States and globalization; in all these years it has been continued to be
taught in schools. Yet the widespread use and power of English have been perceived
in those years as endangering the status, vitality, and revival of Hebrew. English today
is accepted as a legitimate and essential language in schools and society but “up to a
point” only. This means that there is still fear in many Hebrew language planners and
ideologues that English will sweep away the great accomplishment achieved by the
revival of Hebrew. A detailed description of this process is described below.
As noted, the early years of migration of Jews to Palestine took place in the Othman
era at the end of the 19th century. These influxes continued more intensively dur-
ing the years of the British mandate when Palestine became a British mandate in
1917 and the League of Nations approved the Balfour Declaration to grant Jews
the right to a homeland. One of the major ideologies of many of the leaders of the
time, although not of Hertzel, the main visionary of Zionism, was the revival of the
276    Review of Research in Education, 38

Hebrew language and associating it with the creation of nationhood and collective
national identity. The ideology then was to turn Hebrew from a written language,
used mostly in prayer books, to a living language, a vernacular that will be used by all
and in all domains of life—homes, education, and public spaces. The main agenda
was to introduce the Hebrew language as a replacement to the many languages spo-
ken and used by the Jewish immigrants who arrived in Palestine at the time. The
Hebrew ideology was sweeping and oppressive and was targeted against both Jewish
languages such as Yiddish and other territorial languages used by immigrants such
as Polish, Russian, and especially German, given its high status as the language of
science and literature at the time and a home language for many German Jews who
arrived during the 1930s and who openly refused to give up German for the sake
of Hebrew (Shohamy, 1994, 2008). Still, in 1923, Zionist activists who supported
Hebrew managed to convince the British authorities to recognize Hebrew as an offi-
cial language of the Jews in Palestine, resulting in the trilingual policy of English,
Hebrew, and Arabic, mentioned above. Although in those years Hebrew had already
become the language of instruction in school, only a relatively small number of peo-
ple were proficient in the language, whereas Yiddish and other immigrant languages
continued to be used at home and in public spaces (Segev, 1999). English in those
days was mostly used by British officials as the language of government, but it was
not viewed as a strong competition to Hebrew as the two languages were expected
to live harmoniously with one another, serving complementary functions. Various
documents of the time point to active campaigns promoting the use of Hebrew as
the “only” language while rejecting all other languages. In some of these documents,
English is mentioned as an exception, and the British are portrayed as those helping
the Jews protect Hebrew from other languages, especially Yiddish (Shohamy, 2008).
However, throughout most of these years English was taught in both Hebrew and
Arab schools as an additional language.
Some groups, such as the Germans, resented the ideology of the sole rule of
Hebrew, insisting that their newspapers should continue to appear in German; immi-
grants from Poland continued to send their children to Polish-speaking schools, and
many others continued to use Yiddish at home, often unable or unwilling to learn
Hebrew. English was not viewed in competition until the end of the 1930s and the
beginning of the 1940s, when a number of activist groups marked English as the lan-
guage of colonialization and called for its removal as a symbol of the British regime
in the move to independence. This was especially reenforced when the British put a
limit on the number of Jews who would be permitted to immigrate to Palestine so
as to not change the demographic balance of the Jewish and Arab communities in
Palestine. During this period, the British government came to be viewed as a rival
instead of an ally, which brought about violent acts by extreme Jewish groups against
the British rule. In those years, the English language became viewed as “the language
of the enemy.”
Below is an interview with Mr. Gabriel who was active in the Gdud Maginei Ha-Safa
(“battalion for the defense of Hebrew”; quoted in Shohamy, 2008, p. 214):
 Shohamy: The Role of English in Israel    277    

Interviewer: Do you think it could have been done in another way?

Mr. Gabriel: Maybe, if there was a government, then. But this was the time when
the British were here, a very hating government. They would do anything they
could to hurt us. Had they not been so much against us, things could have been
different. So, we had no choice but to establish organizations such as the “gdud”
and to take the authority into our own hands. These groups had to be estab-
lished to ensure that we can revive and maintain the beauty of the Hebrew
language, and especially the use of correct speech. The British and the English
language were viewed as occupiers of the language.

The partition policy by the United Nations in 1947 was followed by the war that
led to the creation of the state of Israel, resulting in a change of the demographic
balance so that a substantially lower number of Arabs remained in Israel and the
Jews became the majority. As noted, one of the first acts of the newly formed Israeli
government was to drop English as an official language, a symbolic act of “getting
rid of the British.” The removal of English was also an ideological act giving prime
importance and centrality to Hebrew as the sole language, especially in the context
of the vast migration at the time of immigrants who did not know Hebrew and the
need to create a cohesive collective national identity.
The 1950s can be viewed as times when major government policies were intro-
duced to spread Hebrew as a homogenous language, a language of instruction in all
schools, accompanied by widespread education policies for teaching the language
to adults as well as the establishment of the Ulpans, intensive schools for teaching
Hebrew to professional immigrants. This included inventing new Hebrew words,
establishing the Hebrew Language Academy, and introducing strong policies of
language purity and language correction, directed mostly to the huge flow of new
immigrants arriving in Israel after the Second World War. The negative attitudes
toward English continued both in private and public spaces, but English continued
to play a central role in the curriculum being taught in schools in both elemen-
tary and secondary levels and in higher education. This is an important policy given
the taboo imposed on all other languages of the Jews such as German or Yiddish,
which were totally banned at universities until the 1960s (Harshav, 1993; Spolsky &
Shohamy, 1999).
Major political changes took place in the 1960s, with the closer affinity of Israel
with the United States; the vast migration of Jews from English-speaking countries,
especially North America; and the status of English as a global and international lan-
guage. English was no longer associated with the British colonial regime but rather
with the United States, especially since English has become not only the world’s
lingua franca but also the main language of communication for the Jews, substitut-
ing Yiddish, a language that almost vanished among secular Jews after the holocaust
and the migration of Jews from Europe. English has become a major language in
schools and universities, with substantial expansion of teaching hours in schools and
278    Review of Research in Education, 38

the adoption of a communicative curriculum to fit the new role of English as a major
international language of communication. English since then has become a highly
desired language by most of the Jewish population in Israel and a requirement for
university enrollment, given its role as the language of science and academia.
In spite of these developments or perhaps because of that, English has been viewed
by many Hebrew language leaders as a threat to Hebrew. Voices of resistance to the
growing power of English have been echoed frequently in the media and at aca-
demic conferences. There are cases when the head of the Hebrew Language Academy
banned the proposed policy of the Minister of Education to use English as a medium
of instruction in two content areas (crafts and gymnastics). The reason given was that
such a policy will threaten Hebrew and lead to its decline. The Minister of Education
gave in to the request, and no content-based instruction has been introduced in
Israeli Jewish schools ever since. (No such objection was made with regard to teach-
ing content in English for Arab schools.)
The power of English as a global language, its broad use among Jewish speak-
ers, and especially its attraction to youth were framed as posing a major threat to
the dominance of Hebrew. It is the combination of the global status of English
along with Hebrew paranoia associated with national existential fear that positioned
English in competition to Hebrew and its symbolism. Yet, along with that, there have
been ample initiatives by parents, schools, and municipalities to develop programs to
teach English at an earlier age, hoping that it would bring about higher proficiency in
the language and greater mobility and status. Currently, most schools teach English
from first grade, and often even earlier, defying the official education policy of later
grades. Municipalities initiate programs to teach English by homeroom teachers in
first grade, and some universities offer prestigious programs where English is the
medium of instruction as part of internationalization of higher education and as an
economic source drawing students from countries worldwide.
The resentment to such programs by Hebrew leaders and ideologues continues
in this day and age and is always framed as a threat to the existence of Hebrew, that
is, the fear that English might take over and eclipse the achievement of the revival of
Hebrew and hence threaten collective national identity. The Hebrew Academy views
its role as a source to not only introduce new words in Hebrew but also guard and
protect Hebrew from English. As late as 2012, Professor Bar Asher, the head of the
Hebrew Language Academy, stated that English poses a threat to Hebrew, especially
in higher education. He expressed fears that it will become the medium of instruc-
tion that will rule the academic scene entirely. The battle against the use of English as
a subject of academia is expressed in Paragraph 1 below, along with the response of
universities’ speakers who argue that English is needed as the language of science and
academic prestige, presented in Paragraph 2; both have been taken from the Israeli
newspaper Haaretz (Nesher, 2012).
 Shohamy: The Role of English in Israel    279    

Paragraph 1: The Academy of the Hebrew Language has declared war against the
increasing use of English in the country’s institutions of higher learning. The
academy says students have a right to speak and study in Hebrew in all course
work. Academy President Moshe Bar-Asher has met with Education Minister
Gideon Sa’ar and demanded that he takes action immediately. The academy
called on Sa’ar to annul any ban on the use of Hebrew at any university or
college department around the country. “That in the State of Israel there could
be such a ban against Hebrew, as in the dark days of our people’s existence, is
inconceivable,” said the academy. The academy called on Sa’ar to collect data
and set clear criteria for the use of English in academic work. Tali Ben Yehuda,
the academy’s director-general, said “demands that students study in English
represent the gravest expression of the trend” of minimizing Hebrew’s role in
academia. Demands that students speak or study in English constitute a phe-
nomenon “that is expanding considerably.” Unless steps are taken, she warned,
“academic departments will instruct solely in English, and this will spread to
the high schools, because a conscientious parent will not send his or her child to
a high school that doesn’t prepare the youngster for university study. According
to Ben Yehuda, “We understand pressures faced by the universities regarding the
world at large, but as far as I know, the State of Israel has not decided to endorse
academic study in English. This isn’t a private matter on which each academic
department can reach its own decision to forgo studies in Hebrew. We want
Hebrew to be spoken in Israel and used in undergraduate and graduate studies,
and in every school around the country.” (Nesher, 2012)
Paragraph 2: Yehuda Band, the head of the university’s chemistry department, said
last night that this English-use requirement did not apply to undergraduates. He
said that “if someone tries to record research results in Hebrew, that consigns his
or her work to oblivion—nobody will read the research summary. Every person
who deals in science today in Israel reads English.” According to Band, written
work in English “adds prestige to the institution and departments where a
graduate student writes his thesis. Whatever the language of the dissertation, the
researcher will have to proceed to publish his work in English.” According to
Band, another argument in favor of English is Ben-Gurion University’s desire to
recruit foreign students. The moment there’s a student in a class who doesn’t speak
Hebrew, the lesson has to be conducted in English. “Of course, these circum-
stances make things harder for people whose native tongue is Hebrew, and yet the
use of English is something that any scientist has to master to advance in his or
her work,” Band said. “If a researcher doesn’t know English, he’s finished. If he
doesn’t know how to write in English, he won’t be able to publish on his own and
will depend on the largesse of others.” (Nesher, 2012)
280    Review of Research in Education, 38

Opposition to English occurs also in terms of displays in the public space. In

2006, Professor Zohar Shavit, a member of the Tel Aviv council, introduced a city
provision that it will be compulsory to include Hebrew in all signs around the city
of Tel Aviv.
In spite of this rivalry and the opposition of Hebrew language leaders, the situa-
tion at all universities in Israel is that they practice bilingual Hebrew-English policies
since almost all academic texts that students read are in English whereas classes are
taught in Hebrew. In some universities, there are provisions that require that at least
one subject be taught in English. Still, the rivalry between Hebrew and English con-
tinues, which has a major impact on the education policy on English, as well as on
the level of proficiency achieved by Israeli students. The Ministry of Education still
opposes the early start of English, so only private funding is available to teach English
in earlier grades; thus, only affluent schools can afford it. There is still no content-
based instruction programs such as the CLIL (Content and Language Integrated
Learning), widely used in Europe, at any Israeli schools. Many university students
have great difficulties in reading academic texts in English, and a large number of
students have to study in special English courses before they are accepted to the uni-
versities as high schools do not prepare them sufficiently for dealing with high-level
English academic texts. English texts are almost never used in Hebrew classes in high
schools, not even in subjects such as history, science, and literature. However, high
proficiency in English serves as the main criterion for admission to universities, and
students need to incur great financial expenses and spend a lot of time in order to
prepare for these courses before they are accepted into universities. Thus, the lack of
effective content-based teaching at schools and the strict separation of Hebrew from
English in academic content prevent many students from entering universities. Thus,
although Hebrew and English are intermingled in many domains of life in Israel and
in virtual spaces, they are kept totally apart in the education systems of elementary
and high schools. The fact that schools do not provide sufficient levels of English
teaching means that many wealthy families have to send their children out of Israel to
acquire higher levels of English and parents initiate programs that they finance rather
than rely on the public education system. The current policies have a detrimental
impact on English proficiency.
The rivalry between Hebrew and English can be observed in other places as well
as in attitudes to immigrants who come from English-speaking countries. In a study
by Blumstein and Shohamy (2012), titled “Do Speakers of Powerful Language Need
to Be Empowered?” it was shown that immigrants from English-speaking countries,
in opposition to immigrants from non–English speaking countries, are discriminated
against in terms of public services. Although most immigrants to Israel obtain special
services, like translation services for accommodation especially for Russians, French,
and Ethiopian immigrants, no such services are provided to English speakers. It was
found that immigrants who are proficient in English, the powerful language that
most Israelis are eager to acquire, are being “penalized” as they do not obtain such
services in English. In a series of interviews, English-speaking immigrants protested
against the absence of language services in public life, especially in health services.
 Shohamy: The Role of English in Israel    281    

The main argument here is that proficiency in a powerful language (English) causes
them to be overlooked as people, as immigrants, who are in need for services as any
other immigrants: Their status as English speakers marks them as different. Most of
the people in the study were senior citizen immigrants from North America, who
despite their use of a powerful language, English, are not powerful enough in terms
of their status as immigrants and hence do not demand language services in English
such as those obtained by immigrants from other countries. English, even today, is
not viewed as an immigrant language but rather as a powerful language in competi-
tion with Hebrew, resulting in discrimination against users of the language.
Yet, in spite of such strict top-down policy toward English as in competition with
Hebrew, there is a strong bottom-up pressure demanding more English. The ongoing
trend is for students to begin studying English in a much earlier age than the policy
of the ministry permits, and store owners bypass the regulation regarding public signs
by putting signs in English and include Hebrew in tiny letters, just to comply with
municipal laws.
In conclusion, it is clear that the status of English in Israel is between high pres-
tige and dominance to rejection and opposition by those who fear that English will
become more dominant than Hebrew. There is the realization that English is impor-
tant, global, international, and functional, but this realization is accompanied by
questions and doubts as to the future of Hebrew, especially since the latter has only
“recently” been revived and has become a vital national language. English in Israel is
held captive by Hebrew: There is still lack of confidence about the future of Hebrew,
and the price paid is the low level of English achieved by Israeli students and espe-
cially the fact that English serves as a gatekeeping device to higher education and
the workplace. Bilingualism in the two languages in spite of the reality of university
studies and the public spaces is still viewed as a threat to the great achievement of
Hebrew revival, and any mixture and trans-languaging among the two languages is
viewed negatively, although it is very common. There is wide acceptance of English as
a global language and ample use of the two languages in public spaces and certainly
on the Internet, but there is still the notion that English “should know its limits” and
that Hebrew should always come first and certainly not as a medium of instruction.
The policies demand that Hebrew should be the only language of instruction in all
schools and subjects and English should never be allowed to surpass Hebrew. This
does not mean that there is no resistance to these restrictions “on the ground” and
that alternative policies are not created and circumvented, usually with additional
costs to the learners. After all, people see great value in English for mobility and are
eager to acquire it at a younger age as they view the advantages that come with know-
ing the language and hence seek other venues and channels to learn it. The tension
originates mostly from the fear of “otherness” as a threat to the continued existence of
Hebrew ideology. Multilingualism is not accepted for English; Hebrew and English
are taught in schools in total separation. Hebrew is the only medium of instruction in
all Israeli Jewish schools and English is still viewed as a “foreign” language, as opposed
to its use “on the ground” in society.
282    Review of Research in Education, 38

English for Arabs and Immigrants

Whereas the first part of this chapter focused on the relationship between Hebrew
and English in Israel, this section addresses the impact and inequalities resulting from
the power of the English language for those who were not born into Hebrew—Arabs
and immigrants. In Israel, Jewish immigrants are expected to acquire Hebrew as it
is the dominant language and the only medium of instruction in all Israeli Jewish
schools. As was noted above, for Arabs, who make up 20% of the Israeli population,
the Arabic language is the medium of instruction in Arab schools and a vital com-
munity language; Hebrew, though, is the language of power that Arabs are expected
to acquire in order to function in most places in Israeli society as it is de facto the
national language in spite of the official status of both languages (Amara & Rahman,
2002). For both Arabs and Jewish immigrants, English is a third language. English is
a compulsory language in both Arab and Jewish schools, and students learn it from
the third grade. Yet for Arabs English is not a top priority given the dominance of
Hebrew in Israel and its role as a societal mobilizer needed for academic participation
as Hebrew is the sole language of instruction in all universities. Although a number of
Arab higher education institutions exist, these are all in the field of education and not
in other disciplines. The inequality results from the fact that whereas English is a top
priority for Jews, it does not occupy the same priority for Arabs as well as for immi-
grants, who invest most of their language efforts in learning Hebrew. Already in the
higher grades of Arab secondary schools, Hebrew has become the language used to
learn mathematics and sciences, and most textbooks are in fact in Hebrew, given the
realization that Hebrew is the main language of instruction at universities. Another
complexity emerges from the fact that spoken Arabic is drastically different from
MSA; the latter considered of higher status in the Arab community and the variety
being promoted in all schools. Yet MSA is drastically different from the spoken lan-
guage, so students invest a lot of time and resources in learning MSA; English then
can be considered a fourth language. The inequality also results from the fact that
immigrants and Arabs are expected to reach identical levels of proficiency in English
as Jews, and they are in fact being compared on the same English tests at the end of
High School; the scores on these tests are used as the main criteria for acceptance to
all Israeli universities. The different conditions of learning English in the different
communities are not taken into account, although the results of these tests have a
direct impact on the outcomes of being accepted or rejected by the universities. For
Arab students, the lack of high proficiency in English poses a major obstacle, and it is
detrimental to their participation in higher education. It is no surprise then that the
scores of the Arab students on those final tests are substantially lower than those of
the Jewish students. Yet, if one examines the total linguistic repertoire of Jews versus
Arabs and immigrants, the latter two groups have a broader linguistic repertoire. The
overlooking of the rich linguistic repertoire can be viewed as an act of marginaliza-
tion, exclusion, and injustice. It is the need to fit into hegemonic Jewish ideologies
of Hebrew, a powerful ideological language in Israel, and of English, a global and
 Shohamy: The Role of English in Israel    283    

powerful language, while marginalizing home languages, that contributes to the con-
tinued policy of colonialization perpetuating “otherness,” which is also accompanied
by the negative consequences of limited access to higher education, limited academic
success, and lack of equal opportunities and participation.
To counteract this discriminatory policy, a new trend that is currently emerging
among Arabs is the enrollment of Arab students at Universities in Jordan where the
language of instruction is Arabic. In a number of studies on the topic, Arar and Haj-
Yehia (2010) point to the costs and benefits that motivate this trend, such as the lack
of Hebrew and English proficiency. At the same time, the studies show that although
these students gain a linguistic advantage, they suffer from the social and psychologi-
cal difficulties of being “the others” in Jordan as well as having to pay substantially
higher tuition payments than in Israeli universities. Furthermore, these studies also
show that after the students return to Israel on graduation, they have great difficulties
in finding employment.
This phenomenon is important to examine within the current trend toward the
development of multilingual competencies. Both immigrants and Arabs develop
multilingual skills as they all are far more proficient, to various degrees in multiple
languages, than the majority of the Israeli Jewish population, who are proficient in
two languages only—Hebrew and English. Yet, although the opportunity to learn
two additional languages is much appreciated, there are serious consequences of
not having high levels of proficiency in the very languages that are most valued and
appreciated in the Israeli society. Most of the views that promote multilingualism
somehow treat all languages as if they have identical values so that the more lan-
guages one knows the better. Yet these policies fail to delve deeper into the meaning
of multilingualism, with questions such as “multilingual in what”? For Arabs in
Israel, learning Hebrew as the only medium of instruction at universities is not neu-
tral as it is associated with a linguistic phenomenon that has been imposed on them
since 1948; it is a language that occupied them. This may involve deep emotions,
hostility, threats for collective identity, historical events, a feeling of marginalization,
as well as lack of personal and language rights. The learning of the language may
introduce a complex set of emotions that touch the very essence of being a minority
in Israel that is further magnified by the official status of Arabic, which is mostly on
paper but has no meaningful manifestation. This may be similar to English, a lan-
guage that is accompanied by a complex set of emotions (Shohamy, 2007). Whereas
Israeli Jews view English as a desirable language, related to the United States, a
symbol of progress, advancement, globalization, and the “West,” Arab students tend
to view it as a “Jewish” lingual franca, especially given the large number of Jewish
immigrants in Israel who come from English-speaking countries (e.g., about half of
Israeli English teachers come from English-speaking countries, mostly from North
America). Thus, English can assume different meanings for different people, in dif-
ferent contexts, at different points in time. In some contexts, a global language such
as English is learned as an instrumental and mobilizing tool and/or one that is
284    Review of Research in Education, 38

associated with imperialism or the West, as a cultural and linguistic occupation; loss
of identity; and a mark of marginality. Multilingualism then does not come free, but
different languages are associated with and related to multiple meanings, layers, and
levels that are embedded in historical, political, ideological, and emotional contexts
(Pavlenko, 2006).
Take, for example, the study by Abu Ghazaleh-Mahajneh (2009), who showed in
his research that for Arabs the need to learn Hebrew and English at the University of
Haifa lowered their perceptions of the status of their home and community language,
Arabic. He found that for Arab students, who at the beginning of the academic
year viewed their language as prestigious, valuable, and important, this perception
changed after 7 months of studying at the university where Hebrew and English had
strong salience whereas Arabic had no visibility and functionality on campus. Thus,
at the end of the year, their perceptions drastically changed—the students admitted
that since the university was dominated exclusively by Hebrew and English, this led
them to undervalue their own language, Arabic, viewing the learning of Arabic in
their schools previously to attending the university as useless and “a waste of time,”
that is, they felt betrayed by the system. In a follow-up study (Shohamy & Abu
Ghazaleh-Mahajneh, 2012), Arab students at that same university expressed feelings
of frustrations and lack of respect given that their home languages had no representa-
tion on campus, especially in the linguistic landscape; they therefore felt that they
were forced to surrender to Hebrew and English ideologies and overlook their own
language.

Conclusions and Discussion

In analyzing the role of English in Israel, two main themes were brought up: One
is the competition between English and Hebrew, two powerful languages between
which there has been continuous rivalry over the years, and this continues in differ-
ent degrees until today. Both languages are learned in schools, but language planners
still fear that English is threatening the continued existence of the revival of Hebrew.
It was claimed that this rivalry has a negative impact on the level of English teach-
ing and learning in Israel, especially in higher education. English is rarely taught
with Hebrew in the same space as there is total separation of the two languages in
schools, unlike the more complementary role in public in Israel and in cyberspace.
The second theme addressed the cost of English for Arabs and immigrants, point-
ing to the inequality of the comparison in English proficiency between students for
whom English is a second language and those for whom it is the third or even fourth
language. The results of equivalent English tests for all groups regardless of the condi-
tions of learning have a major impact on access, participation, and rights.
These issues led to a critique of current views about the promotion of multilin-
gualism; being multilingual for Arabs and immigrants not only does not provide
any academic advantage but also penalizes them as they are not knowledgeable in
the languages that the society values the most, overlooking their whole linguistic
 Shohamy: The Role of English in Israel    285    

repertoire. The current movement toward multilingualism needs to delve deeply

into such issues. In the case of Arab and immigrant students in Israel who are mul-
tilingual in a number of language, this is not viewed as an asset, as they are multi-
lingual in the “wrong” languages, as multilingualism varies by the very contexts in
which people function at a given point in time. Arab students do not view the mul-
tilingualism they share as an advantage as while studying at the university, they do
not see any advantage in terms of mobility. In fact, in each political context there is a
hierarchy of languages that are perceived as having high and/or low values, depend-
ing on a complex set of political, social, economic, and historical factors. This means
that students would rather be bilingual in the languages that society values highly
than be multilingual in a number of languages that do not hold meaningful values
and that have limited economic currency. In the case of Arabic, the language is very
powerful and prestigious in most countries in the Middle East; yet in Israel today,
Arabic is marginal and stigmatized. At the same time, although Hebrew is consid-
ered prestigious in Israel today, it is not used anywhere else out of Israel as a vernacu-
lar. Hebrew and English are the most valued languages, whereas Arabic, Russian, or
any other immigrant languages, apart from English, have very limited value, and
proficiency in these languages is not appreciated. These languages are neither used
widely in the media or as medium of instruction in any of the prestigious academic
institutions in Israel, nor are they languages that Hebrew users seek to acquire as
they do not provide any societal and academic benefits, at this point in time.
The main conclusion is that categorizing languages as global or national does not
capture the scope, depth, and complexity of factors that are associated with language
engagements. There is a need to focus more seriously on what it means to expect stu-
dents to learn global languages and to examine the ramifications of specific languages
in contexts such as the cost of learning other languages that may in the short and long
run serve as assets and of value. As was shown above, learning Hebrew and English
by Arabs in Israel is not identical to learning global and national languages in other
places in Israel. The long-term effects of such policies are far-reaching. Accompanying
the academic marginality, there is also a message about the marginal position of the
very people whose home languages are not valued as the loss of prestige, respect, and
honor. For example, these policies lead Arab students to develop low motivation for
sustaining their home languages as no practical and symbolic values are associated
with them especially in the bastion of higher education, which often serves as the
index of the prestige of languages. In fact, in a number of Arab communities in Israel,
there is a growing demand by school administrators, parents, and students to intro-
duce Hebrew and English as early as possible, often on the account of Arabic. More
recently, many school subjects are no longer taught in Arabic but rather in Hebrew
and English as both are perceived to be more rewarding and leading to greater eco-
nomic benefits. In mixed towns with closer contacts between Hebrew and Arabic
speakers, many Arab students seek to enroll in Hebrew-speaking schools, and the
proficiency in academic Arabic is rapidly declining. In a study by Goldstein-Havazki
286    Review of Research in Education, 38

(2011), it was shown that Arabs in mixed towns such as Jaffa, even in areas where
most residents are Arabs, prefer to use Hebrew and English on signs in their shops
and businesses and to remove Arabic. A number of high school students who partici-
pated in the study documented the linguistic landscape in Jaffa’s public spaces and
found that Arabic has given way to Hebrew and English; this led them to develop a
critical awareness of the phenomenon of the loss of Arabic. As a result, they became
activists in trying to bring back Arabic to Jaffa; they then held conversations with
their parents demanding greater representations of Arabic in public spaces.
It is the role of language policy specialists to recommend language policies that
can even out the inequalities that exist in societies, such as by creating a need for the
majority students to acquire minority languages so to boost the prestige and value of
these languages (Shohamy, 2006). This is especially important given research find-
ings indicating that learning of the languages “of the others” can become tools for
bridging political conflicts and ethnic tensions. In a study on the learning of Arabic
by Hebrew speakers in Israel (Donitsa-Schimdt, Inbar, & Shohamy, 2004), it was
demonstrated that even a short time of learning spoken Arabic by Jews could change
their attitudes about Arabs, viewing them as people and not as political objects. In
other words, although there may be compelling reasons to acquire global languages,
it is of utmost importance not to overlook the other values of learning languages,
specifically for coexistence, for bridging political conflicts, and for creating more equal
and democratic societies where people feel they can participate and be included in
societies so they have the right to participate in any language. Education policies can-
not be limited to mobility and economic achievements but must consider a variety of
other important values such as inclusion, participation, representation, respect, honor,
and connections—let alone personal rights. Language is a very powerful tool that can
be most useful in creating close and meaningful contacts among people. It therefore
requires paying close attention to its role as bridging divides, repairing inequalities,
empowering different languages, and redistributing power.

How unique is english in israel?

Although this chapter focused on the role of English in Israel, one wonders about
the extent to which the phenomenon described above is typical to other non-English
countries in this day and age or is it unique to Israel given the revival of Hebrew.
The revival of Hebrew and the competition with English may be unique to Israel
in the sense that in other countries languages have not been revived in such ways;
yet the idea of one common language that is ideological, dominant, and viewed as a
unifying factor for diverse groups has been around since the end of the 19th century
(and in some cases even before) when national homogenous languages replaced mul-
tilingualism and many language varieties in nations such as in Italy, Spain, France,
China, Japan, and Germany, and this continues till today. In most countries, national
single languages were perpetuated, standardized, and imposed as the only “correct”
languages of instruction in schools and in society; China and other countries are
 Shohamy: The Role of English in Israel    287    

promoting one single language that serves the dominant groups in societies, and cer-
tainly English is promoted in many English countries as a national language and not
necessarily as a global language. The process in Israel may have been somewhat differ-
ent, as a whole country made up of immigrants and other ethnolinguistic groups who
lived there before was forced to acquire a new language, Hebrew, for creating a collec-
tive national identity. The situation with Arabs after 1948 was somewhat different as
they were “allowed” to continue to use Arabic as the language of the community and
the language of instruction in school especially in homogenous areas where the only
residents were Arabs (unlike Jewish immigrants who are forced into Hebrew from the
day of their arrival). Yet, as shown above, Arabs have no choice but to adopt Hebrew
for functionality purpose, while Arabic vitality continues and needs to be guarded
and cultivated. Thus, the fact that all universities use Hebrew as the only language of
instruction and English as the language of texts is detrimental for Arabs, who often
feel “forced” to drop Arabic especially as there is a growing number of Arabs who
participate in higher education.
As to the competition with English, Israel is not unique, as newly standardized
languages that were recognized by nation-states were poised in competition and fear
with “the other” language, English. English and other national languages are still
viewed as competitors in many countries such as Japan, Germany, Spain, and France.
It is also not unique to Israel where English becomes a marginalizing language as
immigrants and minorities are forced to acquire national languages and reach only
low levels of proficiency in the language, yet are being compared with the those for
whom English is a second language, leading to multiple inequalities and injustices as
noted above.
As a final note, it is important to realize that one outcome from the focus on
multilingualism in the past few years has been greater recognition and legitimacy
on trans-languaging, that is, the use of a number of languages together and moving
harmoniously from one language to the next according to needs. It is realized now
that speakers of first languages do not leave their first languages behind and use these
languages in the acquisition of their second and third languages (Haim, 2013). Thus,
both Arabs and the immigrants living in Israel and in other places worldwide con-
tinue to rely and use their home languages as valuable resources, especially in process-
ing content in schools. Similar studies are emerging across many multilingual con-
texts today especially in Africa, where students are required to use English in schools
along with their first language, which used to be taboo in the past; the new trend to
mix languages and to legitimize multiple languages in the same space may be helpful
in reducing the fear from English in some places and empowering other languages for
immigrants and minorities. Together, these can lead to multilingual policies that are
more just and inclusive and use English more harmoniously.
It is the role of language policy experts to demonstrate these trends and to take
activist steps in order to challenge these inequalities and marginalization as a result
of English and promote the uses of first languages in more integrated ways. First, it
288    Review of Research in Education, 38

is important to point to the phenomenon of victimization of people as a result of

language globalization and the high price paid for globalization and promotion of
English language as well as other powerful languages, as in the case of national lan-
guages speakers of minority languages. Then, there is a need to point to the several
years it takes to acquire second languages; to the fact that people should be given
opportunities to demonstrate their knowledge through a variety of means and not
only through national or global languages (Levin & Shohamy, 2008; Levin, Shohamy,
& Spolsky, 2003; Shohamy, 2011). Finally, to legitimate and then encourage the use
of various varieties and mixture of languages, hybrids, fusions, and trans-languaging,
as native-like proficiency is not possible to achieve, nor it is desired. Language par-
ticipation is part of freedom of speech and can be enhanced with various forms of
translation. Also it is important to note that although English is considered a global
language, the real meaning of globalization is multilingualism—it is about diversi-
ties, options, and possibilities where a variety of languages are used in many shapes
and forms and even within the different Englishes. English may be the beginning,
but it is not the end. We need to point out that schools that serve governments and
turn multilingual realities into monolingual islands in the interest of political reasons
work against a just society; instead, teachers should work on developing and cultivat-
ing the knowledge with which students come to school and not marginalize it. It is
important to show how languages are used as manipulative tools with the pretense of
quality education, standards, and correctness; yet in fact, these approaches suppress
the wealth of knowledge that gets filtered when other languages interact. True global-
ization is the acceptance, inclusion, and participation in local, national, and global
societies in Israel and in other places where these phenomena occur.

References
Abu Ghazaleh-Mahajneh, M. (2009). Attitudes towards the status of the Arabic, Hebrew and
English languages among Arab students at the university (Unpublished master’s thesis). Tel
Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. (In Hebrew)
Amara, M. H., & Rahman, M. A. (2002). The Arab minority in Israel. Dordrecht, Netherlands:
Kluwer Academic.
Arar, K., & Haj-Yehia, K. (2010). Emigration for higher education: The case of Palestinians
living in Israel studying in Jordan. Higher Education Policy, 23, 358–380.
Ben Rafael, E., Shohamy, E., Amara, M. H., & Trumper-Hecht, N. (2006). Linguistic land-
scape as symbolic construction of the public space: The case of Israel. International Journal
of Multilingualism, 3, 7–30.
Blumstein, M., & Shohamy, E. (2012). Do speakers of power language need to be empow-
ered? Hed Ha-Ulpan, 99, 99–105. (In Hebrew)
Donitsa-Schmidt, S., Inbar, O., & Shohamy, E. (2004). The effects of teaching spoken Arabic
on students’ attitudes and motivation in Israel. Modern Language Journal, 88, 217–228.
Goldestein-Havazki, R. (2011). A travel diary in Jaffa: Development of linguistic landscape
awareness and attitudes among teenagers (Master's thesis, Tel Aviv University).
Haim, O. (2013). Factors predicting academic success in second and third language among
Russian-speaking immigrant students studying in Israeli school. International Journal of
Multilingualism. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/14790718.2013.829069
Harshav, B. (1993). Language in time of revolution. Berkeley, University of California Press
 Shohamy: The Role of English in Israel    289    

Johnson, D. C. (2010). The relationship between applied linguistic research and language
policy for bilingual education. Applied Linguistics, 31, 72–93.
Levin, T., & Shohamy, E. (2008). Achievement of immigrant students in mathematics and
academic Hebrew in Israeli school: A large scale evaluation study. Studies in Educational
Evaluation, 34, 1–14.
Levin, T., Shohamy, E., & Spolsky, B. (2003). Academic achievements of immigrants in schools
(Report submitted to the Ministry of Education). Tel Aviv, Israel: Tel Aviv University. (In
Hebrew)
Nesher, T. (2012). Israel’s Academy of the Hebrew Language declares war—on English. Retrieved
from http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israel-s-academy-of-the-hebrew-language-
declares-war-on-english-1.415431
Pavlenko, A. (2006). Bilingual minds: Emotional experiences, expression and representation.
Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Segev, T. (1999). Yemei Ha-Kalaniyot: Palestine under the British. Jerusalem: Keter. (In
Hebrew)
Shohamy, E. (1994). Issues of language planning in Israel: Language and ideology. In
R. Lambert (Eds.), Language planning around the world: Contexts and systemic change
(pp. 131–142). Washington, DC: National Foreign Language Center.
Shohamy, E. (2006). Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. London, England:
Routledge.
Shohamy, E. (2007). Reinterpreting globalization in multilingual contexts. International
Multilingual Research Journal, 1, 127–133.
Shohamy, E. (2008). At what cost? Methods of language revival and protection: Examples
from Hebrew. In K. King, N. Schilling-Estes, L. Fogle, J. Lou Jia, & B. Soukup (Eds.),
Sustaining linguistic diversity: Endangered and minority languages and language varieties (pp.
205–218). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Shohamy, E. (2011). Assessing multilingual competencies: Adopting construct valid assess-
ment policies. Modern Language Journal, 95, 418–429.
Shohamy, E., & Abu Ghazaleh-Mahajneh, M. (2012). Linguistic landscape as a tool for inter-
preting language vitality: Arabic as a “minority” language in Israel. In D. Gorter, H. F.
Marten, & L. Van Mensel (Eds.), Minority languages in the linguistic landscape (pp. 89–108).
Basingstoke, England: Palgrave-Macmillan.