The unification of the lists led by Bennett and Lapid ahead of the Knesset elections scheduled for October 27 this year came as a surprise in its timing. The announcement launches the election campaign and carries certain advantages. Lapid brings with him a cadre of effective parliament members, a well-oiled party mechanism, and party financing, while Bennett lacks all of these. On the other hand, the move removes the concern that Bennett might cooperate with Netanyahu and his party after the elections.
It is expected that Eisenkot will, having little choice, jump straight into this joint framework. So what will we get? A mirror image of the Blue and White party of Gantz–Lapid–Ashkenazi–Ya’alon, which ran in the 2019 elections for the 21st Knesset. The result then was 35 seats for Blue and White versus 35 for Likud, leading to a transitional government under Netanyahu. The reason: 10 seats of the Arab parties were not included in the political game. Even now, the Jewish opposition barely scrapes together 60 seats from below (there 120 seats in the parliament). Initial polls following the Bennett–Lapid union show that the opposition bloc still lacks a majority without the Arab parties.
Indeed, it is worth considering the practical benefit of including Arab parties in order to establish a stable government, but it is also important not to ignore the ethical aspect of a “Zionists-only government,” as defined by Bennett–Lapid–Eisenkot. At the outset, it must be stated unequivocally: there is no democracy without Arabs, who constitute 20% of the state’s citizens and possess the right to vote and to run for office. To understand this, it is important to clarify the concepts of “state,” “people,” and “nation.”
A “state” is an organized political system with sovereignty over a defined territory, bounded by borders recognized and accepted by other nation-states. The residents of that state belong to a “nation,” meaning a group of people with shared characteristics living under one government within recognized borders. A “people” is a social group with common and distinctive features such as ethnic origin, language, religion, culture, history, customs, or geographic region. From this we learn that several peoples can together form a single nation-state (as in the United States and Canada), while there are peoples without a unique nation-state (such as the Kurds).
The nation-state of Israel, as noted, is composed of members of the Jewish/Hebrew people (Hebrew for those without religious belief who see Judaism solely as a religion), who are the majority, and members of the Palestinian people, who include adherents of different religions. This is not a unique phenomenon: Belgium (Walloons and Flemings), Spain (Castilians, Catalans, Andalusians, Basques), the United Kingdom (English, Scots, Welsh, and Irish), and many others. In a democratic state, all citizens are entitled to equal rights, and deviation from this principle leads it toward apartheid.
The fact that Herzlian Zionism was established as a movement to realize the Jewish people’s right to self-determination in its historic homeland should not undermine the democratic nature of the nation-state of Israel, in which members of the Palestinian people also live. These principles are stated in the Declaration of Independence; therefore, the tendency of Zionist opposition parties to impose a veto on including Arab parties in government—parties that are not expected to be Zionist—is a significant step toward apartheid.
It is worth recalling that in 1975, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution declaring that “Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination.” This resolution was repealed in 1991; however, the reality in the occupied West Bank (as defined by international law) meets the definition of apartheid. Accordingly, the settlement enterprise, carried out with government support, also fits this definition and thus contradicts the essence of Zionism.
The rules of the political game are dictated by expediency and the preference for the attainable over the ideal. Therefore, the question arises whether the answer provided by the Bennett–Lapid–Eisenkot triumvirate fails this test. According to their approach, as implied, it is preferable to form a coalition with the “Bibi-ist” Likud, or with Ben-Gvir the Kahanist, or with Goldknopf the anti-Zionist, rather than with Mansour Abbas, who has already proven his worth in the “change government.” In the six months until the elections, they may yet change their minds.
“There is no democracy with occupation” is a well-known and widely supported slogan, though not a consensus. Now it must also be said: “There is no democracy without Arabs”—and one must not yield to the poison machine that has already begun its campaign of incitement.
