Arab Parties Face Exclusion Strategy in Israeli Elections

A policy paper released by the "Media" Center for Media Freedoms, Development, and Research reveals a surge in political rhetoric targeting Arab society and its representatives in Israel following the announcement of Knesset elections. The paper indicates that certain political forces are attempting to integrate the exclusion of Arab parties from governmental influence into their electoral strategies, aiming to pre-emptively limit their potential role in forming parliamentary majorities. The analysis, covering nine weeks before and after the July 12, 2026, election date, observed a significant increase in online posts and media quotes related to Arab citizens and their representatives. Specifically, posts concerning Arab society and its representatives more than doubled, increasing their share of monitored content from 13.6% to 20.8%. Statements from Likud party leaders also saw a weekly average increase of about 4.1 times, with a threefold expansion in the number of spokespeople. The paper attributes this escalation not just to the intensity of the discourse but also to its increased density, repetition, and the broader range of political figures involved, suggesting a coordinated campaign. A key finding is the effort to portray political partnership with Arab parties as a burden or threat, rather than a legitimate aspect of parliamentary competition and Arab citizens' right to political participation. Rejection of the United List and other Arab parties' participation in government increased elevenfold, while references linking Arab lawmakers to terrorism rose sixteenfold. The paper also notes a 5.5-fold increase in messages portraying the "change bloc" as lenient towards Arabs and dependent on their votes. The analysis highlights a shift from targeting specific political stances to questioning the legitimacy of political partnership itself, framing Arab party participation in government as a security risk or political concession. This tactic is used to pressure right-wing opponents and steer public debate away from policy towards loyalty tests based on attitudes toward Arab citizens and their representatives. The paper further examines the contradiction faced by some opposition factions that need Arab party seats for a parliamentary majority but have leaders who pledge to exclude them from government. This paradox is particularly relevant given that Arab party votes could be decisive in forming the next government. The paper argues that the opposition's adoption of exclusionary stances lends legitimacy to the right-wing discourse beyond its direct electoral base, reinforcing the idea that Arab parties can be represented in the Knesset but should be barred from decision-making or government formation. The exclusionary rhetoric extends beyond government formation to issues of land, housing, and work, directly impacting the daily lives of Arab citizens. Posts related to the "Judaization of the Negev and Galilee" increased more than fourfold. The paper also notes the presentation of building demolitions and the redirection of development budgets to security agencies as political achievements, alongside statements targeting Arab doctors and broadening suspicion based on national affiliation. It discusses how civil and social issues like housing, development, and crime are framed within a national security discourse, leading to discrimination rather than addressing them as public rights and services. Crime in Arab society, for instance, is reframed from a public safety issue to one with nationalistic dimensions, potentially marginalizing demands for protection and resources. The paper also points to the institutionalization of exclusion through electoral disqualification requests targeting Arab representatives, extending the conflict to the very boundaries of political representation. The paper raises questions about the impact of this discourse on Arab citizens' political participation, acknowledging that it could either foster a sense of futility or drive a protest vote. However, it refrains from drawing definitive conclusions about the campaign's effect on voter intentions or election outcomes, emphasizing the distinction between the documented increase in discourse volume and its actual impact. Ultimately, the paper concludes that the observed escalation deepens existing exclusionary tendencies and weaponizes them in the struggle for power, attempting to separate Arab society's right to parliamentary representation from the legitimacy of its participation in forming a government majority. The debate is thus redefined to include who is permitted to be a partner in governance and whose participation is deemed a threat.