Arab Parties Hold the Balance of Power, Yet Remain Politically Untouchable
As Israel moves closer to another pivotal election, a familiar political objective is once again dominating public debate: removing Benjamin Netanyahu from power. Across much of the political spectrum, opposition figures, centrist parties, sections of the left, and even former allies of the prime minister share a common desire to end his long political dominance.
Yet beneath this apparent consensus lies a profound contradiction. The coalition seeking Netanyahu's removal is neither ideologically united nor strategically coherent. It is bound together less by a shared vision for Israel's future than by a shared opposition to one man.
This reality raises an uncomfortable question. Could the effort to remove Netanyahu ultimately strengthen the very political forces that helped shape his era?
At the center of this dilemma stands Mansour Abbas, leader of the United Arab List (Ra'am), whose political maneuvering may once again determine who governs Israel after the next election.
A Political Landscape Transformed After October 7
The political environment in Israel has changed dramatically since the Hamas-led attack of October 7, 2023, known among Palestinians as Operation Al-Aqsa Flood.
The attack, the subsequent war in Gaza, and the broader regional instability that followed have accelerated an already existing trend toward right-wing politics within Israeli society. Security concerns have increasingly overshadowed debates about coexistence, civil rights, and political inclusion.
As a result, cooperation between Jewish and Arab political parties has become significantly more difficult.
Before October 2023, partnerships between Arab parties and Jewish political factions were controversial but not impossible. Today, such cooperation is frequently portrayed as politically toxic.
This shift has created a peculiar reality. Arab parties remain essential to the mathematics of coalition building, yet many Jewish politicians are unwilling to publicly embrace them as legitimate governing partners.
The contradiction is striking.
Arab citizens represent roughly one-fifth of Israel's population. Their votes are indispensable in close elections. Yet the political system continues to treat their representatives as outsiders whose support may be accepted quietly but rarely acknowledged openly.
The result is a system in which Arab parties possess influence without full legitimacy.
The Consensus Against Arab Participation
One of the most notable features of contemporary Israeli politics is the degree to which skepticism toward Arab political participation extends beyond the traditional right.
Far-right leaders openly reject any possibility of Arab parties joining government coalitions. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich has repeatedly argued that including Arab parties in government would represent a fundamental threat to the Zionist character of the state.
Such views are not confined to the governing coalition.
Former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett has consistently rejected cooperation with Arab parties, advocating instead for a government composed exclusively of Zionist factions. His position reflects a broader sentiment among many voters who view Arab participation in national decision-making with deep suspicion.
At the same time, parts of the opposition recognize a practical reality. Without Arab votes, removing Netanyahu may be impossible.
This has led politicians such as Yair Golan, leader of the Democrats, to signal openness toward some form of understanding with Mansour Abbas.
The gap between these positions illustrates the central challenge facing the anti-Netanyahu camp.
Its members may agree on the need for political change, but they disagree fundamentally about how that change should be achieved.
The Search for Arab Unity
Against this backdrop, Arab political leaders have renewed efforts to rebuild a unified electoral framework.
The fragmentation of Arab parties in recent years has weakened their collective influence. Leaders from Ta'al, Hadash, and Balad have therefore advocated the creation of a joint electoral list capable of maximizing Arab voter turnout and increasing parliamentary representation.
The strategy is not new.
The Joint List previously demonstrated the electoral potential of Arab unity, becoming one of the most significant political forces in the Knesset during the elections of 2019 and 2020.
Supporters argue that reunification could once again provide Arab citizens with a stronger voice in national politics.
However, the obstacles extend beyond electoral mechanics.
The deeper challenge concerns the absence of a stable framework through which Arab political participation can translate into meaningful influence.
Arab parties face a persistent dilemma. Remaining outside government preserves ideological independence but limits practical achievements. Participating in government may deliver tangible benefits but risks alienating parts of their electorate.
This tension remains unresolved.
Why the Numbers Matter
Israeli politics has become increasingly fragmented, making small shifts in parliamentary representation enormously significant.
Recent polling suggests that Netanyahu's bloc remains short of a governing majority. Opposition parties collectively perform better but also struggle to reach the critical threshold of 61 seats required to form a government.
In such a scenario, Arab parties become indispensable.
Neither major camp can easily construct a coalition without at least indirect support from Arab representatives.
This mathematical reality explains why Arab parties continue to attract attention despite efforts to politically marginalize them.
A unified Arab list could further alter the balance.
Higher Arab voter participation would likely increase Arab representation in parliament. Yet this outcome could also generate counter-mobilization among right-wing voters who perceive growing Arab political influence as a threat.
Consequently, increased Arab participation does not automatically produce a more progressive political environment.
Instead, it may intensify polarization and reinforce existing divisions.
The electoral system transforms every seat into a strategic asset, making relatively small political blocs disproportionately powerful.
Mansour Abbas and the Politics of Pragmatism
No figure better embodies this reality than Mansour Abbas.
Unlike many Arab political leaders who emphasize ideological opposition to Israeli government policies, Abbas has pursued a distinctly pragmatic strategy.
His political philosophy is rooted in negotiation rather than confrontation.
Abbas has repeatedly argued that Arab citizens should focus on obtaining concrete improvements in their daily lives, including increased government investment, infrastructure development, housing initiatives, and crime reduction programs.
This approach distinguishes him from many of his rivals.
Rather than treating participation in government as inherently unacceptable, Abbas views it as a tool that can be employed when circumstances permit.
His strategy resembles that of Israel's ultra-Orthodox parties, which have historically prioritized practical benefits for their communities over strict ideological alignment with coalition partners.
The goal is not permanent loyalty to any political camp.
The goal is leverage.
In a fragmented parliament, leverage can be more valuable than numbers.
The Kingmaker Moment
Abbas's political significance became unmistakable after the 2021 election.
At that time, Israel faced prolonged political paralysis. Multiple elections had failed to produce a stable government, and Netanyahu's opponents were searching for any viable path to power.
Abbas provided one.
By supporting the Bennett-Lapid coalition, he became the first Arab party leader to play a direct role in enabling the formation of a governing alliance.
The move was historic.
For supporters, it represented a breakthrough in Arab political participation. For critics, it symbolized a dangerous compromise.
Regardless of perspective, the consequences were profound.
Abbas acquired a reputation as a kingmaker, demonstrating that Arab parties could influence national politics in ways previously considered impossible.
At the same time, his decision contributed to growing tensions within the broader Arab political camp.
The Joint List eventually fractured, reflecting disagreements about whether engagement with the Israeli political establishment represented progress or surrender.
Learning from Disappointment
The experience of previous elections continues to shape contemporary political calculations.
In both 2019 and 2020, representatives of the Joint List recommended Benny Gantz as prime minister in an effort to remove Netanyahu.
Many Arab voters viewed this decision as a pragmatic attempt to influence national politics.
The outcome, however, proved deeply disappointing for many supporters.
Instead of producing a genuine alternative government, the process culminated in a unity arrangement that included Netanyahu himself.
For many voters, the episode reinforced a sense of political frustration.
Promises of change appeared to generate continuity.
Efforts to remove Netanyahu ultimately helped preserve his position.
This historical memory remains powerful.
It explains why many Arab politicians approach current negotiations with caution and skepticism.
They are acutely aware that tactical alliances can produce unintended consequences.
Parallel Strategies, Uncertain Outcomes
Today, multiple political tracks are developing simultaneously.
Hadash, Balad, and Ta'al continue exploring the possibility of a joint electoral list. Their objective is to maximize representation while presenting a more unified Arab political voice.
Abbas, meanwhile, appears to be preserving strategic flexibility.
Rather than fully committing to either camp, he has left open the possibility of supporting a future coalition under specific conditions.
This ambiguity is politically valuable.
It allows him to negotiate with multiple actors while avoiding premature commitments.
For opposition parties, the situation is equally delicate.
They require Arab votes but fear the electoral consequences of appearing too closely aligned with Arab parties.
Consequently, discussions often remain informal, indirect, and deliberately vague.
Everyone recognizes the importance of cooperation.
Few are willing to openly embrace it.
Regional Influences and External Factors
Domestic politics does not exist in isolation.
Regional relationships continue to influence political calculations inside Israel.
Abbas himself has acknowledged that external actors encouraged him to continue coalition negotiations following the 2021 election.
Such statements highlight the extent to which Israeli politics intersects with broader Middle Eastern dynamics.
Questions surrounding Qatar's relationship with various Israeli political actors have generated recurring debate.
Discussions concerning Qatari financial transfers to Gaza before October 2023 have added another layer of complexity.
While the precise impact of regional considerations remains difficult to measure, few observers doubt that external relationships shape political incentives.
For Abbas, these factors create additional opportunities and constraints.
His decisions must account not only for domestic electoral calculations but also for broader geopolitical realities.
Netanyahu's Counterstrategy
Netanyahu is not merely reacting to these developments.
He is actively attempting to shape them.
Recent efforts by some of his allies to challenge Ra'am's eligibility to participate in elections suggest a strategy aimed at weakening Abbas's influence before voting begins.
Such moves reflect a broader recognition of Abbas's importance.
If Arab parties hold the balance of power, reducing their effectiveness becomes a logical objective for competing political camps.
Netanyahu's political career has often been defined by his ability to exploit divisions among opponents.
The fragmentation of Arab politics offers another potential opportunity.
By encouraging competition and mistrust between different Arab factions, he may improve his own chances of remaining politically relevant even if his coalition falls short of a majority.
Two Lists, One Decisive Role
Current polling suggests that Arab parties may ultimately compete through two separate electoral frameworks.
One would consist of a unified alliance involving Hadash, Balad, and Ta'al.
The other would be Ra'am under Mansour Abbas.
Such an arrangement would reflect both cooperation and division.
It acknowledges the benefits of coordination while preserving important ideological distinctions.
Interestingly, this scenario may actually increase Abbas's influence.
Even if Ra'am secures only four seats, those seats could become decisive in coalition negotiations.
Power in parliamentary systems is not determined solely by size.
It is determined by necessity.
A small bloc positioned between two larger camps can exercise influence far beyond its numerical strength.
Abbas understands this reality better than most Israeli politicians.
The Deeper Question Beyond Netanyahu
For many Palestinian citizens of Israel, opposition to Netanyahu is rooted in lived experience.
Years of conflict, expanding tensions, and policies perceived as discriminatory have left deep political scars.
The desire to see Netanyahu leave office is therefore understandable and widespread.
Yet political change raises a more difficult question.
What exactly follows Netanyahu?
The assumption that removing a long-serving leader automatically transforms a political system may be misleading.
Israeli politics has undergone a broader rightward shift that extends beyond any individual politician.
Many of the policies associated with Netanyahu enjoy support among parties that also oppose him.
This creates the possibility that a post-Netanyahu government could preserve substantial elements of the existing political order.
The rhetoric might change.
The personalities might change.
The governing coalition might change.
Yet the underlying direction of policy could remain remarkably similar.
This is the central paradox confronting Arab parties.
By helping remove Netanyahu, they may contribute to the formation of a different government without fundamentally altering the structural realities that concern their voters.
The Price of Political Relevance
The debate surrounding Mansour Abbas ultimately reflects a broader dilemma facing minority politics in divided societies.
Should political actors prioritize ideological purity or practical influence?
Should they remain outside governing coalitions to preserve principles, or enter negotiations to secure tangible benefits?
There are no easy answers.
Abbas has chosen pragmatism.
His critics remain unconvinced.
His supporters argue that results matter more than symbolism.
What is clear is that his role extends beyond the immediate electoral cycle.
The choices made by Abbas and other Arab leaders will shape not only coalition negotiations but also the future relationship between Arab citizens and the Israeli political system.
As election day approaches, the struggle to remove Netanyahu continues to dominate headlines.
Yet the most consequential story may not be whether Netanyahu falls.
It may be what kind of political order emerges afterward.
In a fragmented parliament, where every seat matters and every alliance carries risks, the pursuit of change can produce unexpected outcomes.
The effort to topple Netanyahu may succeed.
Whether it produces a fundamentally different political reality remains an open question.
For Arab parties, and particularly for Mansour Abbas, that uncertainty is both an opportunity and a warning.
The next government may depend on them.
The future they help create, however, may not necessarily reflect the change many voters expect.
Comments
Post a Comment