Arab Political Representation Used by Israeli Right to Maintain Power

The Israeli right, particularly the Likud party, is employing a recurring strategy of racist rhetoric and delegitimization against Arab political parties during times of political crisis. This tactic aims to prevent the formation of a political alternative capable of ending the right's dominance and keeping Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his far-right allies in power. The Likud party has accused Arab parties of election manipulation, bribery, threats, and fraud, calling for investigations by the Shin Bet and police. This narrative, allegedly prepared in advance of elections, suggests the goal is not just election integrity but also to undermine the legitimacy of Arab political representation in the public eye.

This strategy is not new, as the Israeli right has long portrayed Arab parties as unfit for decision-making, despite representing hundreds of thousands of citizens with full rights. When these parties approach influencing government formation or shifting political balances, incitement and fear campaigns against them intensify. The attacks extend to any liberal or centrist Jewish party considering cooperation with Arab parties, framing potential Arab-Jewish partnership as treasonous and illegitimate. The clear objective is to block any coalition that could oust Netanyahu's government or bring about significant political change.

In contrast, Arab leaders advocate for partnership and equality. Yousef Jabareen expressed readiness to facilitate the downfall of the Netanyahu government, emphasizing that change requires genuine and equal Arab-Jewish partnership and an alternative to exclusionary policies. This vision explains the right's sensitivity to any rapprochement between Arab parties and democratic forces, as it threatens the political equation enabling their long-standing rule.

Mansour Abbas, addressing accusations against Arab parties, stated, "Maintaining the integrity of elections and the rule of law is a civic and democratic duty we adhere to. The United Arab List has no connection to the mentioned issue or any other issues, and we affirm our full cooperation with all law enforcement authorities to uncover the truth." This stance, which calls for adherence to law and competent institutions rather than incitement and prejudgment, is seen as trustworthy. True democracy, the author argues, is built on evidence and judicial systems, not rumors and accusations.

The recent elections revealed political frustration as the main outcome. While Netanyahu's bloc performed better than polls predicted, it lost seats. Opposition forces failed to translate poll leads into decisive victories, and ultra-Orthodox parties declined. Arab parties achieved a significant electoral success but face challenges in translating this into actual political influence. The primary obstacle is not their popular representation or democratic legitimacy but a political barrier preventing their influence. When Arabs succeed electorally, accusations arise; when they seek partnership, they are accused of threatening the state; and when they demand civil and political equality, they are depicted as outside the political consensus. This continuous effort to confine Arab parties to symbolic representation, preventing them from becoming actual partners in government, serves the interests of those fearing power loss, not election integrity or democracy. The repeated push for new elections whenever an alternative coalition seems possible is viewed by many as an attempt to perpetuate polarization and fear, keeping Netanyahu and his far-right ministers in power at the expense of Palestinians and regional stability. The author concludes that no democracy can be complete while millions of citizens' representatives are considered illegitimate partners, and that true change comes through mutual recognition and equal political partnership, a vision the right fears most as it threatens their long monopoly on power.