Israel Debates Definition of 'Good Arab' Amidst Political Tensions

The term "good Arab," historically associated with the phrase "the good Arab is a dead Arab" popularized by former Chief of Staff Rafael Eitan, has evolved significantly. In 2006, Judge Ronit Pinchas deemed the slogan racist. Later, the term came to describe Arabs who collaborated with the occupation against their own people, a concept explored in Hillel Cohen's book "Good Arabs." State institutions have defined "good Arabs" as those who remain politically neutral. Following recent elections, the article suggests the "good Arab" is now one who abstains from voting, effectively relinquishing rights and political participation.

Historically, non-voting Arabs were accused of extremism and disloyalty. However, when Arabs participated in large numbers, they were suddenly perceived as a threat to democracy, accused of exploiting it to undermine the state. The article argues that democracy is tolerated only as long as it doesn't alter the status quo for Arabs; unsatisfactory election results are deemed suspicious. This dichotomy was a key factor in the 1996 split of the Islamic Movement, with the "Northern" faction labeled extremist.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu frames Arab voter turnout as part of a global Islamic agenda, posing an existential threat to Israel and justifying the exclusion and potential disenfranchisement of Arab citizens. This rhetoric, the article contends, also legitimizes verbal and physical attacks against Arabs. Arabs went to the polls burdened by issues like crime, home demolitions, budget shortages, discrimination, and war crimes in Gaza and the West Bank, seeking to address injustice rather than seize power.

Despite their electoral gains, which could help address their grievances, Arab citizens now face increased targeting. The article questions the stance of the Israeli opposition and the "change bloc" regarding this incitement and their willingness to engage with Arab parties. Gadi Eisenkot has condemned Netanyahu's campaign as racist and called for the Prime Minister to represent all citizens, but the true test lies in translating these statements into concrete political action and defending the legitimacy of Arab representatives.

The "change bloc" faces a mathematical reality where Arab parties hold significant influence. However, figures like Avigdor Lieberman refuse to rely on Arab parties, while seeking alliances with Haredi parties or even Likud members, provided Netanyahu is excluded. This raises the question of whether Arab parties are being excluded even from providing a parliamentary safety net for an alternative government. While political and ideological differences exist, the article distinguishes between rejecting a partnership based on policy and rejecting it because the represented population is being delegitimized.

The most dangerous outcome, the article warns, is the shift from delegitimizing Arab representatives to delegitimizing the Arab voters themselves. When electoral choices are criminalized and political success is framed as an existential threat, the line between hostile words and actions blurs. Responsibility extends beyond inciters to official institutions and political forces that remain silent when it serves their interests. The article concludes that if democracy fears the results of Arab participation, the problem lies with the limits of democracy itself, questioning whether the "good Arab" is ultimately one who remains a passive observer rather than an active participant.