Arab-Israeli Partnership Debate Echoes 80-Year-Old Ideological Divide
An opinion piece revisits the complex question of Arab-Israeli partnership in Israel, drawing parallels between contemporary political discourse and an ideological debate from 1944. The author, Wassim Khoury, a lawyer and political activist, uses a parable from a 1944 article by Khalil Sakakini to illustrate a perceived historical pattern: Jewish leadership offering partnership but expecting the Arab side to conform to predetermined answers, prioritizing Jewish desires over justice or mutual understanding.
Sakakini's parable involved a priest offering a coin to a student who could correctly answer who should be loved fully. While most students answered family, one boy, named Mordechai, answered 'Jesus,' earning the coin. Sakakini interpreted this to mean that Jews, like the priest, sought answers that suited their agenda, not necessarily the truth. He suggested that in the context of Zionism, this meant Arabs should accept that 'Palestine is your land' and return it, having been mere 'guardians of the fields' during their absence.
Eighty years later, Khoury argues that this dynamic persists, particularly in the differing approaches of two main Arab political factions in Israel: Ra'am and the Joint List parties. Ra'am, he contends, adopts a pragmatic, civil-existential approach, prioritizing tangible gains like budgets and crime reduction by downplaying national rights and avoiding challenges to Israel's Jewish character. This strategy, according to Khoury, allows Arab citizens to retain their religious-conservative identity while securing resources, essentially giving the 'priest' the desired answer on the national level to achieve civil benefits.
In contrast, the Joint List, particularly its dominant Hadash party, views citizenship and national identity as inseparable. They argue that civil rights without national equality are illusory and that civil discrimination stems from national oppression. For them, compromising national identity for material aid is a surrender, and they advocate for a joint Arab-Jewish struggle for structural change, including ending the occupation and dismantling systemic discrimination. They refuse to play the role of 'Mordechai' in exchange for conditional infrastructure budgets or temporary political legitimacy.
The author criticizes segments of the liberal Jewish camp for embracing Ra'am's model as the sole path to partnership. Khoury believes this embrace is a dangerous trap, as it sidelines the more natural allies for the liberal Jewish camp, the democratic Arab bloc. By favoring a conservative-religious partner over a democratic-national one for political convenience and fear of the nationalist majority, the liberal Jewish camp weakens the potential for a long-term alliance based on democratic values, true civil equality, and human rights. He concludes by questioning whether liberal Jewish forces will continue to reward conformity or transcend historical paternalism to build a genuine partnership based on justice, equal citizenship, and mutual recognition.
