Palestinian Political Pragmatism Under Scrutiny Amid Gaza War

In a recent electoral speech on October 18, 2026, Mansour Abbas criticized other Arab parties, particularly the National Democratic Alliance, labeling their aspirations for ending the occupation, achieving peace, and abolishing the Jewish nature of the state as "wonderful" but unrealistic slogans within the current Israeli political landscape. This critique, however, raises deeper questions about who defines political possibilities and the authority to deem Palestinian demands achievable or impossible, especially in light of the Gaza genocide and ongoing colonial settlement expansion in the West Bank, Jerusalem, Gaza, and within Israel itself. The author argues that while acknowledging the difficulty of achieving national goals is valid, reducing these demands to mere slogans is problematic. A crucial distinction exists between stating that ending the occupation is not currently feasible and dismissing the demand for its termination as contrary to pragmatic politics. The most dangerous aspect is when the Israeli establishment's acceptable limits become the benchmark for Palestinian aspirations.

While discussing the limits of parliamentary work and the capacity of Arab parties to secure civil gains is legitimate, the author differentiates between political possibility, dictated by current Zionist power dynamics, and a political project aimed at altering those dynamics. Pragmatism, in this view, should not mean confining politics to what the Israeli establishment permits, but rather developing strategies that respond to reality without accepting its limitations. Palestinian citizenship within Israel, the article contends, was formed within the existing colonial-settler structure, marked by unequal distribution of rights, resources, sovereignty, land ownership, and political belonging. Therefore, questioning the Jewish nature of the state is not symbolic but a challenge to the power structure governing relations between Jewish Israelis and Palestinians.

Daily civil demands cannot be separated from this structure, nor can the results of discrimination and marginalization be addressed without questioning their origins. During the Gaza genocide, citizenship is inseparable from national belonging, and improving living conditions is linked to national rights. Violence, destruction of homes, land confiscation, and unequal protection and resources are not isolated administrative issues but are embedded in the broader political context. The author criticizes Abbas for using the moment of political marginalization of Palestinian representation, exemplified by the attempted disqualification and subsequent withdrawal of Sami Abu Shehadeh from Knesset candidacy, to engage in internal party disputes rather than directing criticism at the state and Zionist parties responsible for restricting Palestinian political representation.

This approach, the article warns, risks transforming state-imposed exclusion into an opportunity for internal score-settling instead of fostering national solidarity against colonial policies. The author also critiques the National Democratic Alliance's project, suggesting that post-Oslo, the "state of all its citizens" concept needs reevaluation within a broader decolonization framework. The core issue with Abbas's discourse, however, lies in his political project itself: accepting the definition of the state as Jewish and operating within the Zionist consensus ignores the fundamental question of how Palestinian equality and interests can be achieved in a state that prioritizes Jewish national preference and subjects Palestinians to discrimination. This acceptance, paradoxically, does not shield Abbas from exclusion, as central forces in the Zionist political scene continue to reject his inclusion in government coalitions. This demonstrates that exclusion targets not only Palestinians who challenge the state's Jewish character but also those who operate within its boundaries. This discourse, regardless of election outcomes, perpetuates the delegitimization of Palestinians as equal political partners and fosters an environment conducive to fascism and apartheid within Israeli society.

The article concludes that Abbas's project, even for his own constituency, attempts to achieve people's interests by adapting to a political consensus that restricts their rights and representation. Reducing Palestinian politics to improving living conditions within existing control structures, rather than challenging them, risks perpetuating these structures. Presenting justice, equality, and ending the occupation as unrealistic demands risks raising generations that view existing power relations as immutable. When Palestinian parties or leaders face exclusion, the responsibility is to foster rejection of exclusion and political solidarity, not to gloat or exploit others' hardships for political gain, which deepens divisions and weakens societal fabric. Political pragmatism should translate principles into strategies that respond to and seek to change reality, not accept the limits set by the Jewish state and its institutions. The author, Professor Areej Sabbagh-Khoury, a sociologist at UC Berkeley and Hebrew University, argues that when the limits of Zionist parties and the Jewish state become the standard for Palestinian demands, it risks accepting and perpetuating relations of supremacy and apartheid instead of working to change them. Political opportunism, which justifies abandoning principles and national solidarity for immediate gains, is contrasted with pragmatism that seeks to improve conditions without compromising rights. The fundamental question remains: who defines political possibility, the Jewish state and its institutions, or the struggle for equality, justice, and an end to colonialism and apartheid?