Arab Voters' Election Choices Raise Questions of Strategy and Legitimacy

The recent Israeli election results, particularly the vote for Arab parties, have sparked debate regarding participation and boycotts, a division that was evident before the vote. Navigating political, national, and ethical standards in evaluating these results and determining how to leverage them is complex within the current Palestinian and Israeli context. While the Joint List party faces confusion, the United List, an Islamist party, appears less unsettled, having previously distanced itself from national and ethical guidelines. The core dilemma extends beyond leadership to segments of the public and elites who voted with two primary motivations: tactically, to help oust the Netanyahu government and curb the 'Zionist entity's' harshness, and strategically, to partially restore Palestinian unity during a critical period of division.

The article questions how to objectively interpret these results without succumbing to preconceptions and how to utilize the demonstrated voting strength without reducing the conflict to internal Israeli political rivalries or overlooking the systemic oppression faced by Palestinians. The results are seen as a significant development in Palestinian electoral history since the Nakba, fostering a sense of agency and confidence among Palestinians within Israel, despite intensified repression post-October 7. This feeling, however, is fragile and requires a concrete action plan and national vision. For Israel, the results deepened the ruling coalition's crisis and complicated the political landscape for Netanyahu's bloc, even though Palestinian voters aimed for a decisive blow rather than mere weakening.

Netanyahu's attempts to cast doubt on the results and initiate investigations by the police and Shin Bet are viewed as potentially opening a new front of incitement and persecution against Palestinian citizens of Israel. The article stresses that the true significance of these results lies not just in their impact on Israeli politics but in their potential to enhance Palestinian collective presence, expand political action, and contribute to rebuilding a national project. It distinguishes between electoral success as a political event and its transformation into sustainable national power, noting that elections offer opportunities but do not create liberation strategies or resolve the fundamental issues of the Palestinian struggle against a colonial and apartheid system.

The piece also addresses the dilemma of the alternative Zionist bloc, reminding readers that "change bloc" parties have stated they will not rely on Arab parties for government formation. This highlights the limited scope of Palestinian participation acceptable to these forces and raises a fundamental question for Arab leadership about endorsing a bloc that rejects partnership and upholds the Zionist foundations of discrimination and potential extermination. The article differentiates between voters motivated by collective existence and a desire to weaken a fascist government, and the actions of their leaders, arguing that broad participation does not grant an open mandate to endorse any alternative government or legitimize those responsible for war crimes. It emphasizes that using broad participation as an excuse to compromise on the Palestinian stance against atrocities is unacceptable, and tactical justifications for endorsements are insufficient without explicit voter consent.

Furthermore, the article discusses the debate around boycotting or participating in elections. A minority view suggested that Netanyahu's continued rule might be preferable to prevent Israel's international rehabilitation by a new government. However, others, including historical boycotters, argued this logic fails to address the catastrophic situation and crimes against Palestinians. The article posits that the widespread participation, despite a general conviction among Palestinians that Israel is a non-democratic, colonial, and apartheid state, reflects a lack of a cohesive Palestinian revolutionary movement with a unifying vision and organized framework. Boycotting, while a legitimate option, requires a viable political alternative to be effective in delegating legitimacy from the apartheid system. In the absence of such a movement, electoral participation becomes one of the few available avenues for expressing collective existence and resisting exclusion.

The article concludes by questioning whether Arab parties should use their seats to facilitate the formation of an alternative government that perpetuates discriminatory policies or complicity in crimes. It suggests it would be more beneficial to focus on strengthening popular organization, resetting political discourse, and consolidating the demonstrated strength of the Palestinian community. This is particularly relevant given the Southern Islamic Movement's trajectory towards integrating into a Zionist government. The call is for a clear political vision and action plan, diagnosing the Zionist system beyond Netanyahu, prioritizing Palestinian issues, and linking the Palestinian struggle to global movements for justice. Reorganizing representative institutions and developing effective popular frameworks are crucial for transforming electoral power into actual political force, connecting daily issues to the broader national project.