On Saturday, January 31, an unusual and significant demonstration took place in Tel Aviv’s Habima Square. Tens of thousands of Arabs and Jews marched together in a rare display of joint civic protest, united in opposition to a governments’ neglect to protect Arab citizens from violence. There was total agreement among the demonstrators that the current Government must be replaced as it is increasingly identified with racism and authoritarian tendencies.  

The demonstration was called by the Higher Committee of the Arab citizens, in response to the spiraling violence and murder within Arab communities in Israel and to the continued failure of the Netanyahu–Ben Gvir government to address it. But its significance extended far beyond a protest against crime. The gathering sent a powerful message: a large and growing public of both Arab and Jewish citizens in Israel is seeking a shared future based on equality, democracy, and mutual responsibility.

For anyone present in the square, it was clear that this was not a routine protest. Conversations with demonstrators revealed an unusual openness and emotional intensity. People were eager to speak, to explain why they had come, and to listen to one another. What brought them out in such numbers was not a political or ideological conviction, but existential anxiety—a sense that the ground beneath their feet is shifting, and that silence is no longer an option.

Not a routine demonstration

Participants arrived from Arab towns and villages across the Galilee, the Triangle region, and the Negev. There were old and young women and men, families who had never demonstrated in Tel Aviv and teenagers who are afraid to be the next target. It was clear to me that most of them never participated in a demonstrated at all. Marching shoulder to shoulder with Jewish protesters was, for many, a first. They carried photographs of victims of violence in Arab society and signs bearing a single word: “enough” (كفي).

The immediate catalyst for the protest was the horrific level of violence that has engulfed Arab communities in Israel. Organized crime, sweeping protectionism curtailing hundreds of businesses, widespread availability of illegal weapons, and years of police neglect have turned everyday life into a source of constant fear

In recent years, Arab society has lived with a pervasive sense of insecurity: Will the child who leaves for school return safely? Will a woman going shopping be hit by a stray bullet? Will a family outing end in tragedy simply because their car was in the wrong place at the wrong time?

The numbers are stark. In 2025 alone, 252 Arab citizens of Israel were killed by this kind of internal violence (in comparison the number of people killed in 2010 was only 73, less than 30% of the number last year). Since the beginning of 2026, already 34 lives were lost. These are not abstract statistics; they are a daily reminder that any Arab citizen could be next.

The protest movement opened the gates of Habima square to the Arabs

Yet the demonstration was about more than violence itself. It reflected a deeper shift: the collapse of a long-held illusion that Arab citizens of Israel can insulate themselves from the state and its institutions, living parallel lives while disengaging from Israeli politics. As veteran Israeli journalist Nahum Barnea wrote after the demonstration, “The threat to life is so great, the government’s responsibility so clear and glaring, that it is impossible to continue with the politics of the past. Eyes that were once fixed on Ramallah are now fixed on Jerusalem. Everything is focused on one issue, one crisis.” (Yediot Ahronot, Feb.2^nd).

In my estimation, Arabs and Jews participated in roughly equal numbers. The strong turnout of Jewish demonstrators mattered deeply. For years, Arab citizens have protested this violence largely alone, often met with indifference or suspicion. This time, thousands of Jewish Israelis chose to stand with them. The atmosphere was respectful and supportive. It was clear that each side was seeking not only justice, but connection.

Several Arab and Jewish speakers gave voice to the emotional and political weight of the moment. Khitam Abu Fana (known as Umm Firas), whose eldest son was murdered while working in the family garage, addressed the crowd with heartbreaking clarity. She described the devastation of losing a son who had recently become a father himself and urged the public not to surrender to fear. She said “I didn’t come here to cry – I came here to scream!”

Prof. Barak Medina, a former Rector of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, called on Jewish and Arab opposition parties to unite against what he described as a racist and failed government. Ali Zbeidat, a resident of Sakhnin whose personal protest helped ignite the mobilization, spoke alongside Jamal Zahalka, head of the Arab Follow-Up Committee, 3 mayors from Arab municipalities, and veteran actress and activist Rivka Michaeli.

New trends made the demonstration possible

Two important trends enabled this unprecedented demonstration: The first is unfolding within Arab society itself. For years, many Arab citizens avoided engagement with Israeli political life, fearing that cooperation, speaking Hebrew, or participation in state institutions would be labeled “Israelization” and seen as a betrayal of Palestinian national identity. This tendency, which intensified after the October 2000 events and even more so after October 7, has increasingly come under question. The realization is spreading that isolation does not protect lives—and that disengagement from Israeli society and politics had come at a terrible cost.

Two important trends enabled this unprecedented demonstration: The first relates to the feeling of many Arab citizens that avoiding engagement with Israeli political life, is a dead end that had come at a terrible cost. The second is visible within liberal Jewish activists who realize that to confront the Netanyahu government they need to join hands with Arab society

The second trend is visible within liberal Jewish society. Confronted with the Netanyahu government’s assault on democratic institutions, judicial independence, and minority rights, many Jewish Israelis now feel that the country is approaching a breaking point. There is growing recognition that the struggle against authoritarianism and racism cannot be won without genuine partnership with Arab citizens. There is also a plain fact: Israeli Jewish opposition alone does not reach the 61-parliament threshold to topple the Right wing in elections.

Habima Square itself symbolized this shift. For the past three years, it has been a central site of protests against Netanyahu’s government and its proposed “Judicial coup d’etat”. On January 31, this same square opened its gates to Arab citizens in a way not seen before. Long-standing criticism that the protest movement marginalizes Arab voices was addressed directly: more than half the speakers addressed the crowd in Arabic. The bilingual nature of the event felt natural, even obvious—an embodiment of a different vision of Israel as a shared civic space.

The need to translate the demonstration into Political force

The demonstration’s power raises an urgent question: how can this moral and civic energy be translated into political change? Protest alone, however massive, will not bring down a government entrenched in power. That requires a political alternative capable of winning elections. Here, the limits of the moment become apparent.

Among Arab political leaders, MK Mansour Abbas has been unusually explicit in calling for concrete political cooperation between Arab parties and Zionist opposition forces. For months, he has urged leaders such as Yair Lapid, Naftali Bennett, and Gadi Eizenkot to form a joint Jewish–Arab front to replace Netanyahu’s coalition. Abbas argues that the choice now is not between protest and politics, but between paralysis and responsibility.

Yet his call has been met with resistance on multiple fronts. Opposition leaders claim that Israeli society, especially after the trauma of October 7, is “not ready” for a government that relies on Arab parties. There is a grind of truth in the hesitancy to cooperate with Arab parties. In the last 25 month since Oct. 2023, the Communist Party led “Hadash Front” and the National Democratic Bloc “Tajamu’” did not convey a sense of solidarity with Israel when it faced an existential threat from Iran and its proxies i.e. Hamas and Hizballah. Yet, MK Abbas represents a sharply different approach and when Lapid and other opposition leader reject him they are actually rejecting the Arab society as whole and thus give Netanyahu and the racist right wing a huge concession.

 At the same time, Abbas faces fierce criticism within Arab society, where some view partnership with Zionist parties as capitulation or betrayal. The day after the demonstration, one Arab media outlet reported that “100,000 Arabs marched in Tel Aviv,” erasing Jewish participants entirely in order to preserve a nationalist narrative. That outlet also did not mention the Israeli-Jewish speakers.

This mutual rejection is deeply troubling. Refusing Abbas’s outstretched hand is not merely a tactical choice—it is a rejection of the tens of thousands of Arab citizens who filled Habima Square in the hope of partnership. It is also a rejection of the Jewish demonstrators who stood beside them, recognizing Arab society as a legitimate and essential ally.

The January 31 demonstration should therefore be understood as both a breakthrough and a test. It revealed a public readiness for shared struggle that political leadership has yet to match. It showed that fear can give way to solidarity—and that despair can be transformed into collective action.

For international observers, the message is clear: beneath the headlines of polarization and violence, new civic dynamics are emerging in Israel. They are fragile, contested, and far from guaranteed. But they point toward a future in which Jews and Arabs do not merely coexist, but act together to defend democracy, equality, and life itself.

Habima Square offered a glimpse of that future.  Whether it remains a moment—or becomes a movement—now depends on political courage.

The post The Jewish–Arab Demonstration in Tel Aviv Signaled a New Direction first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

In Israeli politics, Mansour Abbas’s name is on everyone’s lips. Abbas, the head of the United Arab List (Ra’am), also known as the “Islamic movement” with his almost sure 5 seats, poses a threat to Benjamin Netanyahu. He has the power to change the electoral balance and break the stalemate between the blocs. But he is no small headache for the opposition too. How can the opposition parties partner with an Arab party—especially the Islamic Movement—after the October 7 massacre? For his part, Abbas is doing everything he can to ease the opposition’s concerns and enable it to renew the partnership that led to the unfortunate short-lived (Naftaly) Bennett–(Yair) Lapid government (June 2021 – June 2022).

With forecasts about early elections taking place,  Abbas has been giving interviews to the Israeli media, announcing that his party, Ra’am, is severing ties with the Shura Council—the party’s spiritual authority—thereby transforming it from a religious party into a fully civic one.

To save what remains of Israeli democracy, defeating Netanyahu’s government in the next elections is an urgent historical necessity. Every democratic institution, without exception, is under attack by an extreme right wing, seeking to turn Israel into an illiberal democracy with strong theocratic tendencies. The Supreme Court has been cast as an enemy of the people; the opposition is portrayed as representing the old elites; and the media is accused of spreading lies and slander. There is little doubt that a right-wing victory would give Netanyahu a free hand to destroy what little remains of democracy—and absolve him entirely of responsibility for the disaster of October 7.

Replacing Netanyahu is a top-tier priority for Mansour Abbas too. He sees Netanyahu as responsible for the catastrophe afflicting Israel’s Arab population, as the spread of organized crime, protection, violence, and murder has turned Arab citizens’ lives into a living hell. Yet it turns out that reluctance to rely on the Arab vote is not limited to opposition parties; within the Arab parties themselves, there are those unwilling, under any circumstances, to join Zionist parties to form an alternative government.

In mid-December, at a conference organized by the Arab Center for Alternative Planning on re-establishing the Joint List, the heads of its components were present: Ahmad Tibi of Ta’al, Ayman Odeh of Hadash, Sami Abu Shehadeh of Tajamu, and Mansour Abbas of Ra’am. The Joint Arab List was formed in January 2015, as a way to by-pass the raising of the electoral threshold a year before.  Among the speakers of the conference, Abbas stood out—both for his candor and for the courage with which he stated the facts plainly, while in the process, slaughtering a few sacred cows.

The question facing Arab political leaders is simple: How do you bring about the replacement of Netanyahu’s government? The immediate answer is to rebuild the Joint List, win 15 seats, and thereby block Netanyahu from forming a government. But Mansour Abbas thinks differently:

“Yes, raising turnout is important, but the central question is: What kind of representation do we want in the Knesset? If we reach 20 seats but none of our Members of Knesset can influence a government—or bring it down and form another—what have we achieved? We will end up strengthening the growing trend in Arab society of (non-)participation in politics and push people toward boycotts and direct confrontation with the state.”

In other words, what Abbas is saying—correctly—is that blocking Netanyahu is not enough; one must work to form a better alternative government. Otherwise, we will again find ourselves in a situation where the Joint List wins 15 seats but fails to bring down the government. Abbas goes on to explain his position to his partners in the Arab parties: “All the injustices committed against us indeed invite unity among us, but the question is—what kind of unity, and along what political line? The line of active, influential political partnership—whether within a coalition or in government—is the heart of the debate, because it shapes our daily political discourse and practice.”

Unity, Abbas explains, is important, and so is the number of seats—but most important is how to give that unity substance so that it truly has impact and brings change. “I am leading a project of political partnership with the Jewish-Zionist public, and therefore I cannot speak in the same style as Sami Abu Shehadeh (from the nationalist Balad) or Ayman Odeh (from Hadash),” he clarifies. For Odeh and Abu Shehadeh, the “Jewish-Zionist public” is responsible for genocide, is racist, rejects any partnership with Arabs, and therefore must not be joined in a Zionist government or shared in responsibility for its actions.

This is a principled position, but it undermines the very political goal the Joint List now claims to pursue—toppling Netanyahu’s government. “Politics is not just slogans; it is the art of the possible,” Abbas replies, adding: “Every political project must be judged by its feasibility and applicability, not only by its moral nobility.” Abbas’s words reflect sound political logic: an electoral achievement has no meaning if it cannot be translated into political power.

Mansour Abbas’s position contains an important step toward breaking the wall which is separating Jewish and Arab societies in Israel. If the discourse truly changes, it would be a significant contribution not only to Israeli society, but to Arab society as well. Abbas recognizes that the experiment of the Joint List (2015), which won 15 seats, ended in failure, and that the isolationist, national rhetoric of the Arab leadership only contributed to the continued deterioration of Arab society itself.

Yet, the question remains: What is the nature of this political partnership with the “Jewish-Zionist” public? The Jewish public—at least the part currently in opposition—is not fighting today for narrowly “Zionist” values, but for universal ones: democracy, civil and gender equality, human rights, freedom of expression, and artistic freedom—values now facing an existential threat from the far right.

Is Mansour Abbas’ party, leaning on Islamic principles a genuine partner in defending democracy? Does the break from the Shura Council also entail a distancing from strict Islamic values? Asked about the army draft law of the Haredi population, tearing the Israeli society apart, Abbas responded elegantly that as a representative of a population that does not serve in the Army, he prefers not to take a position. Asked whether he supports a pardon for Netanyahu, he said he trusts the president’s judgment. Had he been asked about a state commission of inquiry concerning the disaster of the 7 of October, his answer would likely have been similar. This is a utilitarian partnership whose sole purpose—by Abbas’s own account—is to rescue Arab society from the dire state it has reached.

Yet while representatives of the Democratic Front (Hadash) and Balad voluntarily remove themselves from influencing the formation of the next government, it is far from certain that Mansour Abbas’ participation in a governing coalition would deliver the hoped-for outcome. Anyone unwilling to be a full partner in the struggle for liberal values will hardly work to instill them within Arab society. The values promoted by the Islamic Movement over the past forty years have fostered Arab society’s conservatism, isolating and deepening its gap with the Jewish society.

The Islamic Movement rests on clan structures and the preserving rigid family hierarchies, suppressing women, and denying artistic freedom. What is unfolding in Nazareth’s municipality today mirrors Arab society as a whole: crime families that have penetrated from the margins into the heart of weak, corrupt local government, turning society at large into a victim of violence and murder. There is not a single Arab citizen untouched by the anarchy and terror that have seeped into every corner. Budgets are essential for Arab society’s development, but without a change in values and a civic—rather than clan-based—outlook, there will never be genuine equality between Jews and Arabs. Arab society needs a social-moral revolution, and at present there is no leadership capable of leading such a change.

And yet, despite all of the above, Mansour Abbas’s position contains an important step toward breaking the wall which is separating Jewish and Arab societies in Israel. If the discourse truly changes, it would be a significant contribution not only to Israeli society, but to Arab society as well. Abbas recognizes that the experiment of the Joint List, which won 15 seats, ended in failure, and that the isolationist, national rhetoric of the Arab leadership only contributed to the continued deterioration of Arab society itself.

If Israeli society on the other hand values life, truly believes in democratic principles, and sees the defeat of the right-wing government as a national priority of the highest order, it must accept Mansour Abbas’s outstretched hand. Bringing Abbas into government carries significance beyond toppling a government: it would enable a civic-based dialogue between Jewish and Arab society—one that could bring profound change among both Jews and Arabs, to the benefit of all.

The post Mansour Abbas: A Lesson in Politics first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

The editorial of Haaretz on June 21 set the tone. “And again, anyone but Bibi!” The article continued: Regardless of what we think of the Lapid-Bennett government and the reasons for its failure, we remain goal-oriented; the task of the Israeli people is to prevent Bibi from returning to power. The key word here is undoubtedly “again”, with voters going to the polls for the fifth time under the slogan “anyone but Bibi.” The goal is to thwart Netanyahu’s attempts to reach the coveted 61 seats, which will push members of the Likud and the right-wing bloc to show him the exit door.

Therefore, this election campaign, like its four predecessors, will be cruel, full of hatred and incitement, and leave behind scorched earth. The Lapid – Bennett bloc will call on its camp to stand behind the flag with the well-known anti-fascist slogan “no pasaran” against Bibi, Ben Gvir and Smotrich. On the other hand, the national camp will call on its voters to defend the flag, the Jewish people and prevent “supporters of terrorism” from taking over the national agenda.

The question, therefore, is what price left-wing parties and liberals will have to pay in their war against Bibi. The price the Likud is paying is obvious – providing legitimacy to Kahanism in the form of Ben Gvir and Zionist Messianism in the form of Smotrich – but this is not a fatal blow to the basic Likud agenda. The Left, on the other hand, pays a great deal more. It must give up all its principles, provide legitimacy to the nationalist conservatism of the right-wing parties: Yemina, New Hope, Yisrael Beiteinu and even Blue and White. Adherence to “anyone but Bibi” entails a relinquishment of the basic values of a liberal society, such as opposition to the occupation, opposition to discrimination against Arab citizens (as expressed in the Nation State and Citizenship laws, which place state Judaism above basic human and civil rights). And the highest price of all: adoption of the premise that there is no solution to the conflict with the Palestinians, and that all that can be done is to manage it.

Over time, the frogs that the Left is swallowing become the daily food of us all. Yielding to the Right has been transformed from a one-time event into routine. The failure of the “government of change” stems from the fact that those frogs popped up every morning in Knesset votes, until they caused severe indigestion. The coalition’s premise that ideological debates can be set aside has proved false. In a situation of ongoing national conflict, and despite the good will of the coalition members, the Palestinian question and Jewish-Arab relations have re-emerged in full, dictating the agenda and unravelling cohesion. It turns out that the hatred for Bibi is not strong enough to overcome basic questions.

The teachers ‘strike, the bus drivers’ protest, the tent protests asking for affordable housing, the state of the hospitals, the endless traffic jams, the violence in Arab society, the huge social gaps and the rising cost of living—all go to show that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not the only concern of Israelis, Jews and Arabs but also the struggles of everyday life, which are rapidly becoming unbearable. Even amid these existential questions, the Israeli Left surrenders without a fight to the Right. For an entire year, the coalition has proved that on socioeconomic issues, it is even to the right of the Likud. Neoliberal policies, which have caused tremendous social gaps, are viewed like natural law by both Right and Left. Health Minister Nitzan Horowitz of Meretz did nothing to heal the health care system. In particular, despite talk of reform, nothing was done to improve the miserable job conditions of medical interns. Meretz Environmental Minister Tamar Zandberg presented a plan to reduce emissions by 2030, but no trace of it remains after the intervention of the representatives of the Ministry of Finance, who prefer gas. Transport Minister Merav Michaeli raised public transportation prices so as not to break the budget given to her by finance officials. The policy of budget reduction and privatization continues just as in the days of Netanyahu, while Israel sits on a barrel of social dynamite.

The failure of the Bennett government raises the question: if not Bibi, then what? Will it be possible to restore the coalition of the eight parties, reconnecting the settler Right with the Left and the Islamists? If the answer is no, what is the alternative to Netanyahu? The only possible answer is a government led by the Likud without him, on the model of past governments that connected the Likud and Labor, as well as Yesh Atid and the ultra-Orthodox, while Meretz, the Arab parties and the Jewish Home Party remain outside.

But that coveted government, the same vehicle that is supposed to restore sanity and normalcy to our lives, would be running a country that is completely abnormal. Apartheid in the West Bank and Gaza is abnormal, extreme social gaps are abnormal, global warming is abnormal, the state of violence—both in schools and in Arab society—is abnormal, the situation of teachers, doctors and the elderly is abnormal, not to mention the state of the roads. It is a country living in anomaly, whose very existence is based on the eternal conflict with the Palestinians and the constant need to cultivate an external enemy, presently in the form of Iran. Imagine how much could have been improved with the huge budget set aside for the army and security apparatus!

When the basic question is “anyone but Bibi,” these existential issues have no place in the public sphere. Israel in 2022 is completely dried up on new ideas, is gradually disengaging from the democracies of the world, is connecting to dark regimes like Putin’s Russia and Muhammed bin Salman’s Saudi Arabia, and denies in practice the climate crisis. It lacks a social vision, blindly relies on market forces that have distorted the economy and left most people far behind. Most importantly, it deceives itself that it can be Jewish, democratic, and an occupier all at once. This is a country that has no place for progressives who strive for an egalitarian society and refuse to hate Arabs.

The Da’am party sees this election as an opportunity to expand discourse on a program that will present an alternative to the Right. Unfortunately, the existing parties, both Right and Left, are not partners for a new political discourse. Those who support Putin, Assad and Abu Mazen cannot engage in democratic discourse. Extremist Islamic ideologues cannot be political partners. Those who are willing to give up their principles to join the fundamentalist Right can hardly be expected to join a discussion on a fundamental change in direction.

Possible partners for such a discourse are people who are willing to oppose apartheid, who prefer partnership over nationalist separation, who support an egalitarian economy, who are willing to sacrifice to save the planet, and whose hearts belong to the global democratic camp. This camp supports Ukraine in its fight against Putin, and it supports the US Democratic Party against the dark proclivities of Donald Trump.

The post “Anyone but Bibi?” So what next? first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

The Bennett-led government is wobbling. Since resignation of coalition leader Idit Silman (of the Yamina party), it has lost its thin majority in the Knesset, and the countdown has begun. How will the government fall? There are two alternatives: a vote of no confidence or dissolution of the Knesset.  The no-confidence alternative must be “constructive”, meaning there must be a candidate for prime minister from within the current Knesset who can muster a majority, thus rendering an election unnecessary. On the other hand, dissolution of the Knesset requires an absolute majority of 61, followed by an election, but here too there is a “twist.”

According to the current coalition agreement, if two MKs from Bennett’s right-wing bloc (Yamina and Tikva Khadashah [New Hope]), break ranks and support dissolution of the Knesset, then Yair Lapid of centrist Yesh Atid (There is a Future) will take Bennett’s place as prime minister, pending a newly elected government. (The same agreement excludes MK Amichai Chikli (Yamina) from being among the two, because he has voted against the government from the start.)   On the other hand, if a member of the United Arab List (UAL) leaves the coalition and supports new elections, Bennett will serve as the transitional PM, with all the benefits of an incumbent during the campaign.

But let’s start from the beginning. Lapid and his allies on the Left were forced to grant the prime ministership to Bennett, even though the latter’s Yamina had won a mere six seats. This marked the odd character of the government. The sole reason it has lasted a year is aversion to and fear of Netanyahu, which forces its members to twist and turn, politically and ideologically. Yet the current Knesset’s gravitational center is clearly on the right. Yamina members are influenced by the right-wing pull, peeling off from the coalition and speeding its death. Following the resignation of Silman, all that remains is for Nir Orbach, director general of a Yamina faction called the Jewish Home, to take steps to ensure the government falls. Yair Lapid will then replace Bennett in a transitional government until a newly elected one is sworn in.

Although the Bennett-Lapid rotation agreement initially gave Bennett and his like, representing the settler Right, the top job and other key positions, it soon became clear they could not deliver what the settlers wanted. On the other hand, the government’s left-wing factions, Labor and Meretz, swallowed every conceivable frog to maintain the coalition. Their purpose was to somehow get through Bennett’s first two years and reach the day when Yair Lapid would become PM. But this coveted day is like the horizon, which moves ever farther away as you try to approach. In addition, members of Yamina have shown how much they suffer in the hybrid government. It seems that a Lapid-led government would drive them into the lap of Netanyahu and the right-wing bloc.

Apparently, this is why UAL party head Mansour Abbas (The Islamic Brotherhood) , who had frozen his faction’s participation in Knesset votes following disruptions and police violence at the al-Aqsa mosque, returned to the coalition. UAL did not want to take responsibility for the government’s overthrow. This would not only signal failure of its political strategy, but it would grant the transitional prime ministry to Bennett. It seems that Yamina’s Nir Orbach will do the work instead by resigning. If he does, the transitional PM will be Yair Lapid, who suits Abbas better.

Beyond this cynical political game, and regardless of who will be PM, the change that this government promised was miniscule, and the fundamental problems that threaten the integrity and security of Israeli society have only intensified. If the fact that a criminal defendant is not serving as prime minister signifies change, then what we have is indeed a Government of Change. The style of speech has undoubtedly improved, as raw vituperation has given way to pleasantness, mutual support, and reconciliation. However, niceness is not the main role of a government. A government is supposed to deal with fundamental problems, and here it has failed miserably.

The fact that after twenty years Israel is forced to return to Jenin to fight terrorism is a clear failure that cries out to heaven. As usual, the Defense Minister, Benny Gantz, has gone to search for terrorism under the lamplight, when the wave of attacks actually came from Hura and Umm al-Fahm, both in Israel, inspiring young people in villages scattered throughout the West Bank. There is nothing in the Israeli army’s much touted entries into Jenin that will change its ability to control this refugee camp. It is merely a show to slake the Israeli thirst for revenge.

The government has decided to ignore the Palestinian issue on two grounds: its ideological heterogeneity does not permit it to handle politically explosive tasks, and it continues to broadcast the mantra that there is no Palestinian partner. But what about the “civil” issues that the “Government of Change” was created to resolve? Here the coalition depends only on itself, but it has been an abject failure. A few examples will suffice. Instead of narrowing social gaps and raising labor productivity, the government continues to nurture high-tech at the expense of other sectors. The housing crisis deepens day by day, and apartment prices are increasing 20% annually. The educational system is in deep crisis, and thousands of underpaid teachers are leaving the profession. Kindergartens and nurseries suffer from low-quality staffing, and horrific stories of violence against children appear in the mainstream news. Hospital reform cannot get underway due to a severe shortage of doctors. In ​​transportation, the government continues to encourage the purchase of private vehicles over use of public transportation. The frequency of trains is decreasing and traffic jams make commuting a nightmare. Climate policy has become a hostage of the Chevron Corporation, while promises of alternative energy remain on paper. Neglect of Arab society continues as usual, with the government interested in fighting violence but not addressing its root causes: the huge social disparities, widespread unemployment among youth, and a poor educational level.

There is no doubt that change is needed, not in style but in content. Israel has been captive for decades to political, economic and social conceptions that have lost their relevance. The success of high-tech on the one hand, and Israel’s military power on the other, dazzle and entangle the country. High-tech does not solve the problems of a socially, culturally and politically divided society, nor is military force an answer to the needs of five million Palestinians lacking any civil or national status. The political crisis that threatens to lead us to a fifth election campaign, and the inability to form a stable and functioning government, express the unwillingness of the political establishment in all its parts – Right, Left and the Arab parties – to step out of their ideological fixations and propose ideas toward a better future.

Those who ignore the Palestinian question will not find solutions to the problems of social disparity, housing, education, transportation, health and welfare. It is no coincidence that Israel links its fate to dark regimes that perpetuate the past. It continues its ties with Putin, refusing to join the democratic camp in the Ukraine war, because of the same ideological fixation. As long as there is no democratic movement based on equality between Israelis and Palestinians, we will continue to be entangled in pointless rounds of elections. If we do not change reality through our actions, it will not change on its own.

The post Not much to sum up: Israel’s “Government of Change” first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

There is no greater contradiction than that between the names of the two parties that organized the new coalition in Israel. Yesh Atid (“There is a Future”) heralds change, while heading the government is a party calling itself Yamina (“Turn Right”), which intends to take us back to the days of President Ronald Reagan, who hamstrung the welfare state and opened the neoliberal era. Today, especially after the lessons of the COVID-19 pandemic, the world is turning strongly to the Left to rebuild the welfare state with ideas from Franklin Roosevelt’s “New Deal,” based on a green economy.

Donald Trump sealed the neoliberal era with a jarring chord that threatened, and still threatens, to destroy American democracy. Benjamin Netanyahu worked to distort Israeli democracy to save his skin from criminal charges. Yet the current American cure for neoliberalism is to bring the state back as a key factor in economic development for the benefit of society as a whole. By contrast, Israel turns rightward to the economic conservatism represented by Naftali Bennett and Ayelet Shaked. What future can Israel expect when the cure for populism is the same neoliberal doctrine from which that populism grew?

Bennett did indeed demand that his eight coalition partners put ideologies aside and concentrate on running the country, investing in areas on which there exists consensus, such as education, health, transportation and welfare. The question, however, is who will develop these areas – the private or public sector? Will the rich pay more taxes (as Biden demands in the US) to reduce the gap between them and the poor? How can one reconcile the need to raise the workers’ standard of living with the harm to organized labor entailed by Bennett’s theory? How can the expansive funding of work-shy ultra-Orthodox men be reconciled with the need to raise the educational level of the disadvantaged? How do you reconcile the contradiction between the new billionaires and the need to fight the link between wealth and government, which has already brought two prime ministers to court on criminal charges and is gnawing away at democracy? It turns out that every road, every desk, and every hospital bed amounts to an ideological choice.

Apparently, the only way to bridge ideological gaps is to cling to the past. We have overthrown Netanyahu but will continue in his footsteps, applying his teachings in our own style. We will change the melody but not the lyrics– melody by Bennett, lyrics by Netanyahu. It’s weird, it’s jarring, but it’s possible. Bennett, a supporter of settling Greater Israel, is sitting in the same coalition as Nitzan Horowitz of Meretz and Mansour Abbas from the Islamic Movement. Netanyahu’s mantras – “Iran, Iran, Iran”, “peace in exchange for peace”, “agreement with the Palestinians is not on the agenda”, “Hamas only understands force”, “we have become a natural gas power”, “we are a cyber power”, “we came out of the pandemic first “- continue to resonate.

Despite Bennett’s adoption of Bibi’s lyrics, US President Joe Biden was quick to call and congratulate him, since the departure of Trump’s close friend is a relief for the US Democrats. Biden is already inviting Bennett to the White House, and as the son of San Francisco -born parents he will probably have no trouble communicating with the President. Yet Bennett ought to update his English, because if he continues to mimic Netanyahu’s, he will get a cold shoulder and a raised eyebrow. He may not have difficulty mouthing phrases like “climate change” or “build back better,” but it will be otherwise with issues like “Black Lives Matter” or “human rights,” since he is committed to avoiding ideology. If Biden makes it hard for him and utters the forbidden P-word (“Palestinians”), the raised eyebrow will be Bennett’s, wondering how Biden arrived at so anti-Semitic a concept.

If Biden tries to ask less divisive questions, such as “democracy or autocracy,” Bennett will have no difficulty, since he is the representative of the only democracy in the Middle East and knows what language to choose. But if Biden demands that Bennett take sides— Putin or him, China or the US— that’s another matter. Bennett will immediately recall the dowry left him by Netanyahu: the special ties with Putin that let Israel attack Syria unimpeded. He will also squirm in his seat if Biden mentions the sale of Israeli companies to the Chinese, such as Tnuva, Ahava and the new port in Haifa.

So yes, Israel stands by its best friend, and democratic values do indeed underlie the strategic relationship between the two countries, but they disagree on the meanings of the words democracy and autocracy. Bennett’s school is closer to that of Trump, which advocates democracy for whites only, while Bennett’s is for Jews only. Human rights à la Bennett may be important for Americans and Israelis, but less so for Russians, Chinese and our Arab neighbors, and it is not in our interest to interfere in their affairs.

Upon his return to Israel, Bennett will announce how he bravely withstood American pressure, just as Netanyahu did before him. Israel will continue to stew in its own juice, Jews against Arabs, Mizrahis against Ashkenazis, Haredim against seculars, and will continue to control five million Palestinians lacking in human and civil rights. At the same time, America is turning to existential tasks, such as fighting against climate change, opposing institutionalized racism, promoting social justice, and grounding democracy. After four decades of destroying the welfare state, pushing itself and the world to the abyss, the US is adapting itself to the 21st century. And Israel? Under the national-religious Bennett, it awaits the Messiah.

For those who do not believe in Bennett’s messianic ideology, and who look through the prism of a worldwide Green New Deal, the manifest reality is bleak and dangerous. The agreement of 115 out of 120 MKs in the Knesset to keep Palestinians out of the public discourse, and to refuse to seriously discuss a permanent solution to end the conflict, is foolishness and injustice. Eight years ago, the Left cried out against Bennett’s statement that the Palestinians are “a shrapnel in Israel’s ass,” meaning that it hurts but can be lived with. Today this attitude is commonplace, from Bennett to Horowitz, from Lapid to Michaeli.

The truth is that the shrapnel has blighted the whole of Israeli society. It has corrupted the youth, deepened racism, and undermined the legitimacy of the justice system. It has profoundly changed the attitude of US Jewry toward Israel, causing American youth to hate it for 54 years of crushing Palestinians by means of Occupation.

The headline of the “Economist” on May 29 did not read “Bibi or not Bibi.” It read, “Israel and Palestine: Two States or One.” The answer is clear and unequivocal. After 28 years of the Oslo Accords, the two-state slogan is irrelevant. Bennett said so eight years ago, and this is what the newly changed government heralds.

If Israel wants to be a democracy, it must adopt the path of the American administration, which advocates equal human rights and a “Green New Deal” to protect democracy from autocracy. Advocates of democracy in Israel and Palestine face the historic task of adopting an “Israeli-Palestinian Green New Deal,” jointly eliminating the apartheid regime by founding one democratic state. The international community is ripe for this. It is the only answer to the religious-nationalist and messianic trends that currently dominate the Israeli and Palestinian societies, reigniting the conflict time and again with no prospect of a solution.

The post A Backward-facing Government in Israel first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.