Arab Parties Face Dilemma Over Israeli Government Formation

Most leaders find themselves in a defensive position, a stark contrast to the confidence expected from their unprecedented electoral success. Some may not have anticipated such explicit and harsh "Zionist" conditions from a leader of the "change bloc" for Arab support. Arab voters cast their ballots to remove a "brutal and barbaric" wing of the Zionist movement, aiming to mitigate its harshness not only for Palestinians within Israel but for all Palestinians. However, focusing solely on the Israeli political landscape and government formation negotiations risks overlooking the broader context of a long and dangerous historical struggle. The article stresses the need to maintain a "national compass" and frame parliamentary choices within the larger conflict against a "colonial, settler, and apartheid system" engaged in "genocide and erasure." This does not preclude pragmatic action or exploiting political contradictions, especially given the absence of a unified Palestinian liberation project and a deteriorating Arab world. Pragmatism must remain within clear national boundaries, guided by political and ethical controls to prevent concessions on core principles or gradual integration into the system. The recent Israeli election results reveal three key points: first, that the intensive Arab vote has made Palestinian citizens of Israel a significant electoral force, provoking a widespread and dangerous incitement campaign from the right-wing government and parts of the "change bloc." 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 Arab support. Third, the Joint List faces a critical test: whether to leverage its electoral weight to improve the reality for Palestinian citizens of Israel and strengthen national identity, or to be drawn into the allure of influencing government formation at the expense of its national stance. The intense incitement campaign 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. While the electoral success is significant, the article reminds readers that in purely revolutionary and ethical terms, boycotting the "parliament of apartheid" would have been the principled stance. However, the majority participated not out of trust in Israeli democracy but as a defense of their existence against "genocide, ethnic cleansing, crime, house demolitions, land theft, racism, and exclusion policies," especially in the absence of a revolutionary Palestinian struggle. The participation has, paradoxically, become a disruptive factor in Zionist calculations. The article critiques the "reckless and childish" approach of Mansour Abbas and his team, viewing it as a dangerous political and intellectual regression. Instead of questioning the colonial nature of the state and its Zionist definition, the discussion has shifted to improving Palestinian conditions within the existing framework, accepting Zionist tenets and gradually abandoning the national cause. Accepting the state's Jewishness as a prerequisite for political influence risks normalizing Zionism within Palestinian society. The issue is not the pursuit of budgets or improved services, which are fundamental rights, but when these become a substitute for national rights or a price for silence on occupation and discrimination. Integration can occur gradually through small concessions, eroding the national stance and normalizing Zionism. The article outlines crucial controls for engagement: rejecting the recognition of the state's Jewishness as a condition for political influence; maintaining political and national independence, avoiding becoming part of a Zionist bloc; not providing cover for war, occupation, settlement, or displacement; ensuring external support does not become undeclared partnership in governance; maintaining transparency and public accountability; not reducing politics to budgets and services at the expense of national rights; and linking parliamentary work to popular organization. The Joint List faces a test beyond seat numbers and government influence, needing to prove that electoral unity does not mean sacrificing national independence and that defending daily rights does not require accepting the system's conditions. Budgets cannot replace the national compass, seats cannot justify concessions on national rights, and removing Netanyahu does not mean dismantling the system he represents.