Arab Negotiators Deserve a Chance to Achieve the Possible

Arab citizens demonstrated unprecedented political engagement in recent elections, turning out in large numbers to influence decision-making centers rather than remaining in opposition and protest. Voters sent a clear message: the need is not just for slogans, but for translating electoral strength into tangible achievements that impact daily life. Negotiations between Arab parties and the leadership of the "Change" parties, notably Gadi Eisenkot, represent a serious effort to convert this democratic momentum into civil, economic, and social gains. The author argues that influencing democratic systems requires negotiation, partnership building, and interest convergence, not just wishes. While acknowledging that these talks won't bring immediate peace, they can achieve significant improvements such as reducing crime, increasing budgets for Arab local authorities, developing infrastructure, expanding legal construction areas, enhancing education, and boosting social welfare services and job opportunities. These are presented as core aspects of daily life, and improving them is a political leadership's duty.

The article outlines two choices for Arab parties: perpetual opposition and protest, or negotiation for real influence, either through external support for a government based on clear understandings or a full coalition partnership if conditions allow. It highlights the political courage required for such a partnership, referencing Yitzhak Rabin's experience in the 1990s, where his reliance on Arab party support for his policies came at a high personal and political cost due to incitement campaigns. This historical context explains the hesitation any Israeli leader might feel today, and why Eisenkot seeks broader Jewish partnerships to counter right-wing rhetoric that uses incitement against Arab citizens as a central electoral tool. The article notes that right-wing forces, led by Benjamin Netanyahu, have waged intense campaigns against any cooperation with Arab parties, accusing them of supporting terrorism, although some of these same parties negotiate with Arab parties when politically convenient, suggesting selective use of rhetoric for incitement.

Recognizing that Arab parties are not monolithic, the article discusses differing strategies, with some favoring direct government partnership and others conditional, concrete understandings. The current approach by the Front, Arab for Change, and figures from the Front and National Democratic Assembly involves clear understandings with the "Change" government: supporting or abstaining on key votes like confidence motions and budgets, and countering attempts to topple the government, in exchange for specific executive commitments to the Arab community. This is presented as a common practice in parliamentary democracies, where elected parties are meant to negotiate and achieve their constituents' interests. The author concludes that Arab negotiators deserve a real chance, not because they are infallible or guaranteed success, but because the alternative is helplessness. The public's electoral participation was driven by a hope for influence, not a return to mere posturing. Constructive criticism is welcomed, but premature doubt serves only those who wish to keep the Arab community outside spheres of influence. Politics, the article states, is the art of achieving the possible, and success in translating electoral power into tangible improvements would fulfill the mandate given by the voters, enhancing citizens' lives and the Arab community's standing.