Analysis from Israel
It’s little surprise that many Israelis have come to view Arab citizens as a “fifth column.”

MK Effi Eitam’s statement on Sunday that Israel should expel West Bank Palestinians and bar Israeli Arabs from political life, since the latter are “a fifth column, a league of traitors,” understandably raised a storm. Once, such statements belonged to the political fringe. But Eitam heads a nine-member Knesset faction, National Union. And another party, Israel Beiteinu, won 11 seats in March on a platform calling for transferring many Israeli Arab towns – and their inhabitants – to the Palestinian Authority. In short, about a sixth of the Knesset now backs such ideas.

Nor are these politicians disconnected from popular sentiment: In a poll last December, 40 percent of Israeli Jews said that the state should “encourage Arab citizens to emigrate.” That is still a minority (52 percent disagreed), but it is clearly approaching the tipping point – especially since 63 percent termed Israeli Arabs “a security and demographic threat to the state,” with only 13 percent disagreeing.

Unsurprisingly, this trend worries Israeli Arabs. MK Azmi Bishara (Balad) complained of a “season of incitement against Arab MKs” during the recent Lebanon war. Bakar Awada, director of the Center Against Racism, said the poll showed that “racism is becoming mainstream…. This is a worrisome development.”

Yet Israeli Arab leaders apparently still see no connection between this growing anti-Arab sentiment and their own behavior. And in fact, their behavior is the main impetus for this trend.

Last weekend, for instance, Bishara’s Balad faction traveled to Damascus, thereby violating the law prohibiting travel to enemy states. While there, he publicly praised Syria’s “struggle to free occupied Arab land” and its “resistance against occupation” – i.e., its support for anti-Israel terror. Moreover, he makes such statements frequently, as in a 2001 speech praising Hizbullah’s “guerrilla war” against Israel, the “losses” (casualties) it inflicted on Israel and its “victory” over Israel.

THUS BISHARA openly advocates terror attacks against the country in whose parliament he sits, rejoices when it suffers casualties and cheers when it loses battles (“Hizbullah won, and for the first time since 1967 we have tasted the taste of victory”). Is it surprising that such behavior provokes cries of “fifth column” and “traitor”?

Or take Balad MK Jamal Zahalka’s explanation for the trip: “We don’t see Syria as an enemy state.”

Thus not only does he contemptuously ignore laws enacted by the parliament in which he sits, he declines to view a country that is officially at war with Israel – and whose president publicly threatened just last month to resume hostilities someday – as an enemy state.

Nor is Balad an exception. In November 2000, for instance, Hadash faction chairman MK Muhammad Barakei publicly urged Israeli Arabs to participate in Palestinian violence against Israel. This past January, he declared: “I’m not loyal to the country; the country must be loyal to me.” Similarly, MK Taleb a-Sanaa, of the third Arab party, Ra’am-Ta’al, told the Nazareth-based newspaper Kul al-Arab in 2001 that the leader of Hamas, perpetrator of most anti-Israel suicide bombings, was an “exalted” figure comparable to the Dalai Lama, while Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah – who had kidnapped four Israelis, including three in a cross-border raid, the previous year, five months after Israel withdrew from Lebanon – “deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.”

Civil society leaders are no different. Last month, for instance, Itijah, the union of Arab nongovernmental organizations in Israel, declared the Israeli government “responsible for every drop of blood spilled” in the fighting in Lebanon.

Ahmad Saad, editor of a leading Israeli Arab newspaper, Al-Ittihad, concurred: “I blame only the Israeli government.”

ONE CAN certainly argue that war was the wrong response to Hizbullah’s cross-border raid on July 12. But that Hizbullah was blameless? That violating the international border, killing three Israeli soldiers and kidnapping two – six years after Israel left Lebanon – were completely legitimate acts? Is it surprising that such statements spur anti-Arab sentiment?

Finally, there are the ordinary citizens. Since most Israeli Arabs vote consistently for the three Arab parties, it is hard to argue that they do not share these parties’ views – especially given the Israeli Arab consensus that their MKs are useless on issues such as jobs and housing. In short, voters are not disregarding political rhetoric for the sake of bread-and-butter issues; they are disregarding bread-and-butter issues for the sake of the rhetoric.

Nor is other evidence lacking – like the many Israeli Arabs who called Hizbullah’s Al-Manar television station during the Lebanon war to urge continued missile launches at Israel. Or the harassment and ostracism of those rare families whose sons volunteer for the IDF.

A year after his son was killed in uniform in 2004, for instance, Talal Abu Lil reported suffering “threats, harassment, shooting and even attempts to open his grave…. People simply turned their back on us.” Yusuf Jahjah, whose son was killed in the same incident, agreed: “I feel ostracized, people in the village keep their distance from me… I’m always afraid someone will try to damage his grave.” Samir Shehada, whose son also died in that incident, said: “I’m thinking of moving to a Jewish community in the area. I can no longer live in this atmosphere. I live near the mosque, and after prayer services, people don’t talk to me or shake my hand.”

The three also reported efforts to deny their sons burial in Muslim cemeteries. And all three live in different towns – indicating how widespread these attitudes are.

Put bluntly, many Israeli Arabs cheer armed attacks against Israel, and view the minority who serve in their country’s armed forces as traitors.

Indeed, the community’s official representative, the Higher Arab Monitoring Committee, explicitly urges Israeli Arabs not to serve in the IDF, while pointedly refusing to condemn Palestinian terror.

Is it surprising that many Israelis thus view them as a “fifth column”?

Israeli Arabs have some legitimate grievances. But these grievances in no way excuse such virulent hostility toward the state, of which the above examples are merely a sampling. And unless this attitude changes, Jewish support for Eitam’s view of the Israeli Arab community will only continue to grow.

Subscribe to Evelyn’s Mailing List

Why Israel Needs a Better Political Class

Note: This piece is a response to an essay by Haviv Rettig Gur, which can be found here

Israel’s current political crisis exemplifies the maxim that hard cases make bad law. This case is desperate. Six months after the coronavirus erupted and nine months after the fiscal year began, Israel still lacks both a functioning contact-tracing system and an approved 2020 budget, mainly because Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is more worried about politics than the domestic problems that Israel now confronts. The government’s failure to perform these basic tasks obviously invites the conclusion that civil servants’ far-reaching powers must not only be preserved, but perhaps even increased.

This would be the wrong conclusion. Bureaucrats, especially when they have great power, are vulnerable to the same ills as elected politicians. But unlike politicians, they are completely unaccountable to the public.

That doesn’t mean Haviv Rettig Gur is wrong to deem them indispensable. They provide institutional memory, flesh out elected officials’ policies, and supply information the politicians may not know and options they may not have considered. Yet the current crisis shows in several ways why they neither can nor should substitute for elected politicians.

First, bureaucrats are no less prone to poor judgment than politicians. As evidence, consider Siegal Sadetzki, part of the Netanyahu-led triumvirate that ran Israel’s initial response to the coronavirus. It’s unsurprising that Gur never mentioned Sadetzki even as he lauded the triumvirate’s third member, former Health Ministry Director General Moshe Bar Siman-Tov; she and her fellow Health Ministry staffers are a major reason why Israel still lacks a functional test-and-trace system.

Sadetzki, an epidemiologist, was the ministry’s director of public-health services and the only member of the triumvirate with professional expertise in epidemics (Bar Siman-Tov is an economist). As such, her input was crucial. Yet she adamantly opposed expanding virus testing, even publicly asserting that “Too much testing will increase complacence.” She opposed letting organizations outside the public-health system do lab work for coronavirus tests, even though the system was overwhelmed. She opposed sewage monitoring to track the spread of the virus. And on, and on.

Moreover, even after acknowledging that test-and-trace was necessary, ministry bureaucrats insisted for months that their ministry do the tracing despite its glaringly inadequate manpower. Only in August was the job finally given to the army, which does have the requisite personnel. And the system still isn’t fully operational.

Read more
Archives