Arab Parties Face Dilemma Over Israeli Government Influence

Many prominent figures within these parties find themselves in a defensive position, contrary to the confidence expected from their unprecedented electoral success. Some may not have anticipated such "Zionist" conditions from a leader of the right-wing "change bloc," especially given that Arab voters supported the removal of a "brutal" Zionist movement faction. The article argues that focusing solely on Israeli political maneuvering risks overlooking the broader historical context of a protracted conflict, with the current juncture being particularly dangerous. It emphasizes the need to maintain a clear political compass, framing all parliamentary choices and potential alliances within the larger struggle against a "colonial, apartheid, genocidal" system. While pragmatic action and exploiting political contradictions are necessary, especially given the absence of a unified Palestinian liberation project and a weak Arab world, pragmatism must be governed by clear national principles to avoid compromising core values or gradually integrating into the existing system. The author stresses that this is not an end to the conflict but a critical phase within a long liberation process.

The Israeli election results reveal three key points: first, that the substantial Arab vote has made Palestinian citizens of Israel a significant electoral force, provoking widespread incitement from the right-wing and parts of the center-right opposition. Second, the so-called Zionist opposition shares fundamental similarities with the ruling coalition regarding the definition of Israel as a Jewish state and the conditions for accepting Arab support. Third, the Joint List faces a critical test: whether to leverage its electoral weight to improve the situation of Palestinian citizens of Israel and strengthen national identity, or to be drawn into the allure of influencing government formation at the expense of national positions. The intense incitement and questioning of the legitimacy of the Arab vote highlight the contradiction between claims of democracy and the refusal to recognize Palestinians as equal partners. The article acknowledges that while boycotting an "apartheid parliament" might be a principled stance in purely revolutionary or ethical terms, the majority's participation was a defensive act to protect their existence amid the absence of a revolutionary Palestinian project and in the face of ongoing violence and discrimination. The participation has, paradoxically, become a disruptive factor for the Zionist establishment. The article cautions that this defensive participation does not automatically translate into a liberation strategy or grant representatives a free hand to compromise national principles, which is the core issue for the Joint List.

The political consciousness of Palestinian citizens of Israel has evolved from demanding equality to questioning Israel's definition as a Jewish state and exposing its colonial and racist structure. The Nation-State Law reinforced the impossibility of full equality in a state founded on Jewish national privilege and revealed its expansionist agenda. The actions of Mansour Abbas and his team are described as a dangerous political and intellectual regression, shifting the focus from challenging the state's colonial structure to improving Palestinian conditions within it, while accepting Zionist tenets and gradually abandoning the national cause. The article criticizes the normalization of Zionism within Palestinian society when recognizing the state's Jewishness becomes a prerequisite for political influence, turning pragmatism into a tool for subjugation. While advocating for budgets and services is crucial, it should not replace national rights or become the sole measure of political success. The danger lies in the gradual erosion of the national stance through seemingly minor, justifiable concessions that normalize Zionism. The article rejects reducing the debate to participating in or boycotting the government, noting distinctions between joining a coalition, supporting it externally, or abstaining from votes. External support, it warns, can be as dangerous as direct participation, potentially providing political cover without public accountability. Any engagement with the government or opposition must adhere to strict conditions: rejecting the state's Jewishness as a condition for political influence, maintaining political and national independence, not providing cover for occupation and settlement, avoiding covert partnership in governance, ensuring transparency and public accountability, not reducing politics to budgets and services, and linking parliamentary work to grassroots organization. The Joint List faces a test beyond seat numbers and government influence; it must prove that electoral unity does not mean compromising national independence and that defending daily rights does not require accepting the system's terms. Budgets cannot replace a lost compass, seats do not justify compromising national rights, and removing Netanyahu does not dismantle the brutal system he represents.