Israeli Academia Debates Palestinian Political Agency and Jewish Supremacy

Professor Doron Navot argues that the political influence of Palestinians in Israel is not determined by their electoral power or will, but by the willingness of Zionist parties to recognize their representatives as legitimate political partners. Navot posits that parties forming the Joint List cannot effect change because Zionist parties are unwilling to rely on them. He suggests that emphasizing Palestinian national identity and collective demands weakens their influence, and that political pragmatism requires adapting demands to the boundaries of legitimacy set by the Jewish political system. This perspective, according to the author, reflects a consistent intellectual framework that assesses Palestinian political possibilities based on the limits of recognition and legitimacy defined by the Jewish majority.

Professor Areej Sabbagh-Khoury critiques Navot's framework, questioning who has the authority to define rational politics and legitimate aspirations for Palestinians. She argues that Navot's analysis, by accepting the boundaries set by the Jewish majority, risks reproducing power relations that limit Palestinian political options. This logic, she contends, echoes historical patterns from the 1948-1966 military rule period, where state institutions and associated researchers produced knowledge about Palestinians as part of control mechanisms. During that era, Palestinian political participation, though formally including the right to vote and run for the Knesset, was subject to surveillance, dependency, and coercion, particularly through party-affiliated lists and restrictions on independent national organizing.

Sabbagh-Khoury highlights a contradiction in Navot's argument: while deeming votes for the Joint List legitimate, he describes them as going into a "black hole" with no impact on government change, suggesting voting for the United Arab List or Zionist parties is the only path to real influence. She distinguishes between analyzing the limits of Palestinian political power and using those limits to judge Palestinian politics. While acknowledging the refusal of Zionist parties to engage with Palestinian parties, she argues that critical analysis must question the origins and perpetuation of this exclusion and what it reveals about the nature of the system and the limits of Jewish-Israeli democracy.

The author contends that Navot's approach shifts responsibility from those practicing exclusion to those subjected to it. Instead of demanding recognition as equal partners, Palestinians are urged to adapt to the conditions imposed by excluding powers. This transforms exclusion from a reality to be fought against into a constraint to be absorbed. Sabbagh-Khoury criticizes the omission of the Gaza war and genocide from Navot's analysis, stating that Palestinian struggles in Israel are inseparable from the Palestinian people's history and present. She questions whether material achievements should replace demands for ending genocide, occupation, and apartheid, asserting that there is no inherent conflict between improving living conditions and striving for radical political change.

Sabbagh-Khoury concludes that Navot's framework, by adopting Zionist legitimacy boundaries as a starting point, fails to critically examine power relations and instead accepts them as conditions for reasonable political interpretation. She argues that Israeli academia, particularly Jewish academics, has historically played a role in legitimizing colonial control and Jewish supremacy. True academic inquiry, she posits, should aim to dismantle these power structures and expand possibilities for equality and liberation, rather than reproducing them by accepting their inherent limitations. The core issue, she emphasizes, is not just which Palestinian party can influence government composition, but why Palestinian choices remain effectively contingent on the colonial Jewish majority's willingness to grant recognition.