The Israeli National Elections ushered in a new political dynamic which will surely change the way Israel’s Jewish and Arab citizens interact.  Avigdor Lieberman, the hawkish immigrant from the Former Soviet Union who heads the political party “Yisrael Beitenu” acquired 15 mandates in the recent elections, making his party the third largest in the Knesset.  His public demand that Arab citizens sign loyalty oaths in order to preserve their citizenship has further isolated the Arab public from the political mainstream and raised feelings of fear, anger and resentment among large segments of the population that threaten to further damage Jewish-Arab relations.  Lieberman’s “No Citizenship Without Loyalty” plan aims to force all citizens to have a role in national service, whether it civic or military, their citizenship contingent upon active participation.  This is aimed not at encouraging greater participation in Israeli society, but rather to play on the Arab aversion to all army-related institutions (due to the army’s actions in the territories and in the region), and to strip Arabs of their citizenship. This is a sneaky move by Lieberman, and his juxtaposition with the leading parties gives him the leverage that makes it frightening.   But have we considered what an outrage it would be to pin such demands on other segments of the Israeli population?  Haredi Jews do not serve in the army nor do they commit to national service, and there is no small percentage of “draft-dodgers” either.  Never before has there been talk of stripping their citizenship.  Many messianic Jews are actively against the establishment of the state and some Ashkenazi Ultra-orthodox party MKs will serve as deputy ministers but will not actually serve as ministers for these sentiments.  The fact is, this rhetoric is designed simply to further estrange and alienate the Arab public from the political game. 

But beyond all that, the fundamental flaw behind the logic of the plan is the understanding of citizenship.  Citizenship is a basic right provided by a state to its constituents.  It is not conditioned upon behavior, beliefs, loyalty, or even actions.  Suggesting that it can be taken away so carelessly is contrary to the liberal democratic ethos.  Even radical theocracies have yet to “go there.”  What if the Ayatollahs decided to strip the citizenship of the Jews in Iran?  That would indeed create a problem for the largest Jewish community in the Middle East outside of Israel.  In an article written by Avi Sagi and Yedidia Stern,[i] we are reminded that even those that committed the most heinous crimes against their countries do not face the threat of losing this fundamental citizenship right.  Yigal Amir murdered the Israeli Prime Minister, Yitzhak Rabin, and yet he sits in jail stripped of freedom but not citizenship. Citizenship comes with certain responsibility and obligations (we are obliged to obey the law), but in a democracy, neglecting to fulfill those obligations does not jeopardize the right to citizenship.

Unfortunately, this whole issue derives from displaced anger at the Arab public, which is by and large a result of the state’s poor handling of the minority.  This displaced frustration is rapidly becoming a detriment to the democratic nature of the state.  Sagi and Stern sum it up quite elegantly saying, “Minority status is the cornerstone of Jewish memory. In exile, we were victims of various loyalty tests – religious, civil, social and national. How is it that we have internalized our persecutors’ norms?” 

Israel should be very cautious in the way that it is treating its minority.  This country, the national home for the Jewish people, has an opportunity to show the world how a minority should be treated, and Lieberman is not a move in the right direction.

 Even before this election, the Arab community’s faith in the political system was almost completely depleted; seeing a figure such as Lieberman receive such a shocking number of mandates, reflecting widespread and mainstream Jewish support for his principles, has killed many hopes, even amongst moderate elements of the population. 

How did this happen?

Many years of cross-border conflict, most recently in Gaza, have strained Jewish-Arab relations within Israel to near breaking point. Tears in the fabric of Israeli society have already been seen in events such as those in Acre, when violent clashes between Jewish and Arab youth led to irreparable damage to property and to the tapestry of previously mixed Jewish-Arab neighborhoods. Wide socio-economic and political rifts and growing trends of separatism and alienation pose a threat to Israeli democracy and to Israel’s status around the world.  Recent war on Gaza polarized the Arab public in ways not seen since the second Intifada.  Although the Israeli Police handled this situation with better care and the protests were by and large non-violent, over 700 anti-war Arab demonstrators were detained, and the Arab mainstream was pushed into a corner, which effectively exacerbated trends of separatism. Simultaneously, the Jewish mainstream, guided by a largely pro-war consensus, could not understand that victims of the operations were family and friends of Israel’s Arab population and directed their anger towards them, becoming more allowing of racial slurs and extreme rhetoric.  Lieberman manipulated these trends and capitalized on anti-Arab sentiment in order to solidify his position and assert himself in the political playing field.  By spearheading the move in the Central Elections Committee to disqualify Arab parties from participation in the political process, he tested the waters and saw that the time was ripe for exploiting the growing rift in Israeli society.  Most recently, “No Citizenship without Loyalty” is sure to test the limits of the societal cohesion if it has not already dissolved them.  Sagi and Stern said it best, “The new demand for loyalty is the natural continuation of our everyday, banal attitude toward the Arab minority… Yisrael Beiteinu’s slogan did not change things. Rather, it bluntly articulated the facts of life in Israel.” 

The facts unfortunately reflect years of neglect and systematic discrimination of the Arab minority by the hands of the state.  Social trends have arisen in the progression of the Arab narrative in Israel, creating cycles of Israelization and Palestinization, terms that most aptly illustrate the construction of their collective identity.  During the years of Rabin, Arabs in Israel felt more included in the political and social system than ever before.  Arab representation in the Knesset even provided a “safety net” whereby Labor could pass legislation it needed with the backing of the Arab parties, despite not being included in the coalition.  When Barak ran in the national prime ministerial elections, he promised inclusion of the Arab voice, which he later refused.  This combined with the failure of the Oslo Peace Process served as the catalyst to a Palestinization process, which has resurfaced today with full potency. 

The Declaration of Independence guarantees “complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex”, yet Arab citizens continue to be underserved in budget and land allocation, access to government services, employment opportunities and education. In 2003, the Or Commission[ii] acknowledged that the government’s handling of the Arab sector has been “neglectful and discriminatory” yet its recommendations, to address the lack of sensitivity to the Arab population and unequal distribution of state resources, have not been implemented.

The urgency of dealing with this discrepancy is based not only on moral rights and declared values, but is intrinsic to Israel’s security and stability. Israel’s future cannot be secured if its Arab citizens continue to feel disconnected from wider Israeli society, or if their calls for economic, social and civic equality continue to be neglected.

Israel has much to gain from an approach that sees engagement with the Arab population as an economic asset rather than a threat. For example, in the Sdereot-Israel conference in November, Aiman Seif, director of the Economic Development Department of the non-Jewish Sector (Prime Minister’s Office), said, “The Israeli market will lose NIS 40 billion ($10.2 billion) this year, which is six percent of the GNP, as a result of the failure to integrate Israeli Arabs into the market.”   So, if the state were to lay the groundwork for official policy addressing these issues, or at least preparing itself for them, we will certainly be better equipped to engage the Arab public as an economic asset, and not a potential disaster. 

Coexistence can only be achieved in a climate of social equality and economic opportunity.  Notwithstanding the important work of civil society organizations, without the official and widespread leadership in both word and deed of the government in directing Israel to a shared future, equality and coexistence between Arabs and Jews in Israel will forever remain limited in geography and scope.

There is no doubt that the last 60 years of ill-treatment by the state towards Arab citizens plays a vital role in the alienation and estrangement, which resulted in the radicalization of Arab political leadership (also an integral part of the larger problem).  But despite the way in which Lieberman comes to his proposal, and more importantly the motivation behind it, the suggestion itself is not altogether far-fetched.  Of course “forcing” anything is a terrible idea, and equality should not be the result of a compromise or price paid, rather a fundamental right given to all without condition.  In an opinion piece in Haaretz a few weeks ago, Moshe Arens[iii]said regarding loyalty, “It is something that has to come naturally, from a feeling of being at home here, from an appreciation for the principles on which the State of Israel is founded, from a sense of sharing a common fate with Israel’s Jewish citizens.”

So it is important to remember that equal opportunity, social inclusion and integration are the components that are lacking in the state’s treatment towards its Arab citizens, and only after we begin to address these issues can we even begin to talk about integrating them into the military and national service apparatus. Presently, grassroots organizations working in the field of coexistence, over 170 to be exact, constitute the only true way to stimulate and bring about lasting and realistic change.  It is unfortunate that the burden is on civil society organizations.  It is the Israeli government which has the responsibility to provide equally to all its citizens.  Creating a successful multi-cultural fabric within the state could present a model of pluralism and democracy for countries in the Middle East and beyond, while engaging Israel’s Arab citizens as ambassadors for partnership with the Arab and Muslim world. Therefore, an emphasis on coexistence education policy should be considered within the legislative chambers immediately.  Starting with education will provide the necessary foundation for our future generations to live together with mutual goals and interests.  Although this will demand monumental changes in the budget as well as the education system, the worth of such reform will pay off.  At the end of the day, the most important thing to realize is that integration of Arabs properly into this state will be for the betterment of the state.

[ii] The State Commission of Inquiry led by Judge (ret.) Theodor Or, established by the government to investigate the events of October 2000 in which 13 Arab Israeli citizens were killed by Israeli police officers during riots. 

[iii] ”Not Last and Not Least,” Moshe Arens, Haaretz, February 18^th, 2009