Economist's Proposal for Arab Party Inclusion in Government Criticized
Translated & summarized from Arutz Sheva by baba
Columnist Israel Diskind criticized economist Shaul Amsterdamsky's proposal for Arab parties to join the Israeli government, citing political and ethical objections. Diskind highlighted politicians' stances and the emotional toll on families of fallen soldiers, arguing such a move would be politically damaging. He proposed an alternative: a national unity government of those who fought together, suggesting it's a more viable path to healing societal divisions than a short-lived coalition with parties perceived as supporting terrorism.
The story in 6 lines · by baba
- Columnist Israel Diskind rejected economist Shaul Amsterdamsky's idea of Arab parties joining the Israeli government.
- Diskind cited politicians' opposition and families' pain as reasons against the proposed coalition.
- He warned that including parties perceived as supporting terrorism would be a political self-inflicted wound.
- Diskind proposed a national unity government of soldiers who fought together as a better alternative.
- He argued that a government of those who served together could heal societal divisions.
- Diskind advised Amsterdamsky to focus on economics rather than politics.
Columnist Israel Diskind has sharply criticized an idea proposed by economist Shaul Amsterdamsky for Arab political parties to join the Israeli government as full partners, not just external supporters. Amsterdamsky suggested this could form a unity government that might last about a year. Diskind argues that Amsterdamsky, while adept at explaining economics, misunderstands the complexities and values inherent in politics, likening his approach to manipulating an Excel sheet rather than engaging with human identity and history.
Diskind highlights the political and ethical obstacles to such a coalition. He points to statements by politicians like Avigdor Lieberman, who has built a career on forming a "Zionist government" without Arab or Haredi parties, and Hili Tropper, who outlined four conditions for political partnership, including recognizing Israel as a Jewish and democratic state and Hamas as a terror organization, that Diskind claims no Arab party currently meets.
The columnist further emphasizes the emotional and moral cost, citing the reactions of parents of fallen soldiers. Shira Shapira, mother of Aner, who died defending a shelter, stated she would "absolutely not" sit in a government with parties like Ra'am, after a member of that party described Hamas partly as a "charity organization." Similarly, Elisaf Peretz, brother of fallen soldiers Uriel and Eliraz and a reservist himself, would be expected to sit alongside those who refuse to condemn terrorism and may secretly admire the murderers of his brothers.
Diskind also recalls the political fallout from the 2021 government that relied on Ra'am's support, which he argues led to a rightward shift in Israeli politics and the subsequent election of a government with 64 mandates. He warns that repeating such a move, by bringing Arab parties into the cabinet, would be a "political self-inflicted wound" that could alienate the Israeli center for a generation.
Instead of including parties that struggle to condemn Hamas, Diskind proposes a "national unity government" composed of those who have fought against Hamas. He suggests this alliance of soldiers, who have served and protected each other regardless of political affiliation, offers a more viable path to healing societal rifts. He argues that such a government, even by Amsterdamsky's own one-year estimate, would be more durable and beneficial than a coalition with parties holding what he deems extremist views, urging Amsterdamsky to stick to economics.
Mentioned
