Discussion surrounding Arab party’s entrance into coalition misses the point
With the entry of the Ra’am Party into Israel’s new coalition, there has been substantial discourse in the media about the historic ramifications of an Arab party sitting in a government and not just supporting it from the “outside.” Commentators have analyzed the benefits for Israel’s Arab minority of having a party inside the coalition to negotiate a greater share of the national budgetary pie on their behalf.
Much of this discussion misses the point, for two reasons. The first is the labeling of the Arab parties that make up the Joint List as left-wing parties. The second is the pattern of applauding the other Knesset parties’ willingness to include an Arab party in the coalition as a full partner.
Regarding the first error, the notion of political Right and Left is a matter of perspective, with the definition varying between countries and nationalities. For example, in the US, the Republican Party is considered Right wing and the Democratic Party Left wing. The Republican Party is nationalist, advocates a strong national defense and US dominance of world diplomacy, advocates a capitalist economy and opposes government regulations of the economy, and generally opposes social welfare programs. The Democratic Party, on the other hand, opposes a nationalist
view, is an advocate of a strong national defense but opposes US dominance of world diplomacy, supports government regulation and intervention in the economy, and is the major source of social welfare programs.
Contrast that to Israel, where the Likud Party and its right-wing allies are nationalists and support a strong military but have also been a major source of Israeli government intervention in the economy, including in regard to regulations and much
of Israel’s social welfare legislation. Similarly, the Israeli Labor Party and its left-wing allies have traditionally been advocates of a strong military as well as economic regulation and social welfare programs. In Israel, the distinction between the right-wing and left-wing camps focuses almost entirely on the Palestinians and the West Bank: annexation, continued occupation or withdrawal, and two states for two people or one state with two peoples.
Similarly, the distinction of political Right and Left in Israel differs between the Jewish and Arab communities. The Jewish Right is nationalist and advocates one state for two peoples with a Jewish majority and Arab minority. The extreme Jewish Right calls for one state encompassing the entire area (Israel and the West Bank) and expulsion of the Arab population.
The Arab parties that make up the Joint List, including Ra’am, are also nationalist, calling for one state for two peoples, but with an Arab majority and Jewish minority. Their extreme Right calls for the expulsion of the Jewish minority. Neither the remaining members of the Joint List nor Ra’am are Left wing, as understood by the Jewish Right and Left. The mistake on the Jewish part stems from the notion that any support for a Palestinian state is Left wing. But is it? That depends on whether the position includes a Jewish state alongside the Palestinian state, or not.
IF A NATIONALIST ideology that excludes the national rights of the “other” is Right wing, then the Israeli Arab parties are Right wing. And in terms of the parties with the most extremist views, Balad is to the Arab politic as Otzma Yehudit is to the Jewish politic.
If you accept the above, then the next error makes sense. That is, the discussion to date about Ra’am joining the coalition from the inside and not just supporting it from the outside has assumed the following: that the breakthrough here is the willingness of the Jewish parties to allow an Arab party to be on the inside and take a ministerial portfolio. But that’s not the case. The Labor Party has in the past (when it was one of two “ruling” parties) tried to get the Arab parties to enter with both feet, and the Arab parties have refused. The question is, why?
Once inside the government, the Arab parties, like the haredi parties, can squeeze the coalition for benefits for their community. They can secure funds for their schools, roads and more, and further integrate their communities into the country’s social and economic structure. Once on the inside, they could secure long-demanded recognition of unrecognized Bedouin villages, as well as electricity hook-ups for Bedouin towns that are recognized but not connected to the electric grid (and some not hooked up to the water system). Assuming that the Arab leadership is just as politically astute as the Jewish leadership, we can further assume the Arab leadership is aware of this, and by choosing not to join the coalition they are forgoing these benefits. These two assumptions, then, lead to the conclusion that forgoing the benefits is deliberate.
Given their nationalist orientation, the Arab parties don’t want Israeli Arabs to integrate into Israeli society. They prefer they remain on the outside, poor and bitter. Arab nationalists oppose the integration of Palestinians into Arab society and oppose the integration of Israeli Arabs into Israeli society. They are better prepared for the revolution against the Zionist entity. This is why Ra’am leader Mansour Abbas has been accused by the other Arab parties of betrayal. While Arab nationalists advocate segregation, Abbas is heading toward integration.
The achievement of Ra’am entering the coalition and not just supporting it from the outside is the recognition by an Israeli Arab leader, Abbas, of the strength and viability of the Jewish state and the likelihood that it will not be replaced by a Palestinian state anytime soon. It is a recognition that the time has come for Israel’s Arab leaders to recognize the state and represent their constituency not by calling for the dismantling of the state, but for the integration of that constituency into Israeli society.
The time has come for a reduction of the Arab minority’s poverty and its integration into Israel’s economy. It’s time that Israeli Arabs take part in the country’s leadership: social, economic and, yes, even military (as the Druze population has already done).