+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

'A Palestinian state isn't the solution, but it's a step in the right direction': Meet MK Jamal Zahalka

Chairman of the Balad party says that unification of Israel’s Arab parties is nothing short of historic — both in Israel and the Arab world: ‘There has never been unity between the communists, nationalists and Islamists.’ In an interview, Zahalka talks about his party’s appeal to Jewish voters, why the Joint List won’t join an Israeli government and what compromises he is willing to make to end the occupation.

MK Jamal Zahalka (Balad) marches along with thousands of people march through Jerusalem in support and solidarity with the Max Rayne “Hand in Hand” bilingual school, which was the target of a racist arson attack a week earlier, Jerusalem, December 5, 2014. (Photo by Oren Ziv/Activestills.org)

MK Jamal Zahalka (Balad) with his daughter, December 5, 2014. (Photo by Oren Ziv/Activestills.org)

“A war of attrition.” That is how writer Samah Salaime Agbaria, my colleague at +972’s sister site Local Call, described the endless negotiations between the Arab parties in their attempt to form a single, united slate for the upcoming elections. It is a unity that was forced upon the parties, ever since the electoral threshold was raised, threatening to keep a large portion of Palestinian representatives out of the next Knesset.

For weeks, the Arab public followed its elected officials as they entered top-secret negotiations. The only thing the public had were pieces of information that had been leaked, which only testified to the bad blood and the vast ideological differences between the parties.

The task seemed almost impossible at some points: how will members of the Islamist movements sit with the communists of Hadash? Who will lead the list? Will there be one list or two? In which spots will the different candidates be placed on the election slate?

Click to read +972’s full election coverage

As the rumors swirled and the general atmosphere was teetering between hope and despair, Balad Chairman Jamal Zahalka says that he had no doubt the parties would unite in the end. “For months I was the only person in the country who believed that the list would come into being. I turned myself into the village idiot — helplessly optimistic. But look, it happened.”

It is possible that Zahalka’s optimism stemmed, among other things, from the fact that a joint list was vital for Balad’s survival: the votes it received in the previous elections, as well as current polls, suggest that Balad may not have made it into the next Knesset on its own.

Since its establishment in 1995 by Azmi Bishara, the party has been the most consistent and aggravating challenge to Zionist hegemony in Israel: its platform for a “state of all its citizens,” is seen as a direct threat to the Jewish state — to Israel’s Jewish-only privileges that come at the expense of the Arabs, the indigenous people of the land. Time and again, Israel’s Central Elections Commission has disqualified the party — or its members — from running for the Knesset, forcing them to appeal to the High Court to reverse the decision. The complex relationship with the State came to a boiling point in 2007 when Bishara fled Israel after being suspected of treason, leaving the party in Zahalka’s hands.

Read also: The agonies of being an Arab democrat in the Knesset

Zahalka, 60, was born and resides in Kafr Kara. He is a doctor of pharmacy and a founder of Balad, in which he has served as an member of Knesset since 2003. Despite the controversies surrounding Bishara, Haneen Zoabi and Said Nafa (who spent a year in prison for “contact with a foreign agent”), Zahalka has been able to maintain a positive, non-controversial image for himself, which perhaps allows him to gain support among crowds outside his political base. There is something in Zahalka that makes you to listen closely to every eloquent and precise word he says. He is married and a father of five girls — his eyes glisten every time he speaks about one of them, as if he were talking about a revolution in the Arab world. He’s also a self-identified feminist. When I ask him about the ninth place in the Joint List, MK Taleb Abu Arar from the Islamist Movement who is married to two women, he is silent for a long time, before smiling and finally responding: “What can I say. It is very uncomfortable for me.”

But despite this, for Zahalka the success of Arab unity is nothing short of an historic event. “In the history of the Arab people in the 20th and 21st century, there has never been unity between the communists, the nationalists and the Islamists. There is no such thing. And these are the agents of change in the Arab world — these are the ones who must cooperate in order to bring down regimes.”

But why is this unification important in and of itself? What reason do communists have to sit with people from the Islamist Movement, apart from the fact that Liberman decided to raise the threshold in order to keep Arabs out of the Knesset?

Heads of the parties on the Joint List, left to right: Masud Ganaim (Ra’am), Jamal Zahalka (Balad), Iman Odeh (Hadash), Ahmad Tibi (Ta’al). (Courtesy o the Joint List)

Heads of the parties on the Joint List, left to right: Masud Ganaim (Ra’am), Jamal Zahalka (Balad), Ayman Odeh (Hadash), Ahmad Tibi (Ta’al). (Courtesy o the Joint List)

For the same reasons that Mao struck a deal with Chiang Kai-shek: to form a national front. This is one of the most important political lessons of the Left in the 20th century: unity against fascism, racism and colonialism. This is the field we are playing in. Unity brings us back to the basics: we are not part of the Labor-Meretz game; we are an oppressed minority fighting for our rights. From this perspective, uniting prevents a distorted Israelization. We are confronting the regime, not the opposition.

At the end of the day, more than 90 percent of our Knesset voting record is identical. That means that our differences account for less than 10 percent. You won’t find this kind of unity in any other list or party.

So why did it take so long? It seemed like you came out out of the process bruised.

The arguments were a natural part of the process. The parties come from different traditions and there is a lot of bad blood between them. The struggle over the mayoral race in Nazareth left a lot of tension between Hadash and Balad, as well as other parties (the mayoral race, which has traditionally been won by a Hadash candidate, was won by the Ali Salam, partly due to the support he received from Balad. Victory was claimed after a difficult and long period of vote counting, which even made it to court. O.N.), as well as the internal struggles between student groups, etc. It was all very sensitive, and it made it difficult to unite.

The Joint List published seven joint principles, one of them deals with ’67 borders. Has Balad become a supporter of the two-state solution?

We have never opposed the establishment of a Palestinian state, we just say that it will not solve the issue. But is a step in the direction of a solution. The political plan of the Joint List is an end to the occupation. The fact that Balad supports a framework of equality for all citizens, and the fact that our vision did not make it into the political program of the list, does not prevent us from believing in a bi-national state.

Balad struggles to end the occupation, dismantle the settlements, establish a Palestinian state and solve the refugee issue according to UN resolutions. This is our political platform. But there is also a discussion inside Balad over one state, which has been going on for the last two years. Some of the party leaders support this solution and some do not. That is why it is currently being discussed. I believe that the relevance of the two-state solution is fading, and that the moment for a one-state solution has yet to come. That is why our current outlook is entirely pragmatic.

From a political perspective, however, there is a need for an end to the occupation and international legitimacy, etc. So I am willing to make a historic compromise, but under no circumstances will I ever make a compromise over history. I will continue to tell the history of the kibbutzim, but political solutions will be dealt with on a pragmatic level.

Will every political party handle its own campaign, or will there be one campaign?

The Joint List will have one campaign, but that doesn’t mean I do not foresee difficulties.

The campaign will also be directed at the Jewish public?

Hadash has a few thousand Jewish supporters, while Balad has a few hundred. I believe that the Joint List has a potential of getting a few thousand more Jewish votes. And there are a lot of discussions about a Hebrew campaign, since Hadash are used to working in a particular way, and we are ruining that in a way. They are not the only ones who will be able to speak to the Jewish public.

What can Balad offer the Jewish voter? You are seen as an Arab party, not to say Arab nationalist. What interest does a Jewish voter have in supporting the Joint List?

We are the most authentic representatives of the oppressed, and it is the duty of the progressive individual to support the oppressed. This is not a condition. To support those who are screwed over. But this is not a list that represents the interests of the Arab public alone, but rather has a democratic outlook of a state of all citizens. This is the only secular platform in Israel, because only a project of a state of all its citizens can be a secularizing project.

You are often accused of recognizing Palestinian nationalism, but not Jewish nationalism.

We recognize the fact that a Jewish-Israeli nation has come into existence, despite the fact that it is in denial of its own existence. I recognize the right of the Jewish people in Israel to self-determination, not the Jewish people the world over. The main difference between Balad, Hadash, Meretz and others is that I don’t see a state that belongs to the Jewish people. This is the essential difference. The state belongs to the Jewish people, and within this framework the Jewish-Israeli people can fulfill its self-determination, without granting privileges based on nationality or religion.

So you propose the Jewish public do away with these privileges in order to receive… what?

So that my girls and your girls can live freely in a true democracy. So that they can live like human beings. The situation of white people in South Africa didn’t get worse after the fall of apartheid. On the contrary: they became normal in the eyes of the world. This is what I am proposing.

Speaking of appealing to the Jewish public, your well-known quote from the film ‘Ashkenaz,’ while standing at the entrance to a kibbutz, has turned you into a star in some radical Mizrahi circles. It seems like you understand Mizrahi discourse quite well, and yet you have never appealed to the Mizrahim as a political group.

(The full quote from the film: “The Ashkenazim took Palestine from us, not the Mizrahim. It’s not the ones saying “death to Arabs” who took the land from us. It’s the ones who said, ‘we come in peace’ [‘Hevenu shalom aleichem’].”)

We totally miss the Jewish public, and this is one of Balad’s failures. We did not build enough bridges with the Jewish public that is open, at least partially, to the things we are saying. And I admit that we have not written or spoken enough about the Mizrahi question.

But let’s admit the truth: Mizrahim could have been partners to our vision maybe 50 years ago. Today it is much more difficult to turn back the wheels of history.

The Zionist project swallowed the Mizrahim whole?

Yes. A complete Israelization of the Mizrahim. The Mizrahi problem still exists, of course, although I am not sure that the Mizrahi struggle has the political potential to turn into anything. The story of multiculturalism only serves this trend: “Here, take your culture and go have fun on the side. Leave the center to me.” But it is obvious that we must think about the political potential of the Mizrahim in Israel.

I don’t know if you noticed, but Haneen Zoabi does not appear in the first photos released by the Joint List. There was something symbolic in that.

Don’t look for any political meaning behind it. She probably had to run off somewhere.

How are you gearing up for the discussion on her disqualification from running. What will you do if she is disqualified?

We are running a campaign against the disqualification. Legally the case to disqualify her is even weaker than what it was in the past. Even legal experts agree on this. There is a basis to the possibility that the court won’t disqualify her, even under the strictest legal interpretations. The biggest fear is of the politicization of the issue — that the judges will believe that it is very popular to disqualify her and will be tempted to do so.

And if they do so?

If Haneen is disqualified, she will become much more important. It will give the international community ammunition in its campaign against Israel’s discrimination and racism against the Arab public. She will turn into “the MK who was disqualified.” This is a class of its own. I see the huge political potential it would grant us. They won’t disqualify her.

And if they do, will Balad and the Joint List continue to run as usual?

We have yet to come to a decision, we will have to sit down and discuss this. I don’t want to speak in the name of the list, but there will be a response either way.

Looking back, could it be that Zoabi’s contrarian behavior worked against you? Was it a wise move politically?

She has always said and done the right things. The problem is the political system and the media in Israel. We are not willing to pretend and soften our stances because of rampant racism. She’s a woman, an Arab, secular — people don’t know how to deal with that. I am proud of Haneen and will support her no matter what, especially against the racist attacks on her.

How is Azmi Bishara doing?

The truth is that he is no longer very connected. We used to meet every two or three months when he lived in Jordan. But now that he lives in Qatar we meet approximately once a year.

How involved was he in the process behind unifying the parties?

Zero. He was not involved at all. He is dealing with other things, like the research center that he established there. He is slowly disconnecting from everything that is happening here. When we meet, he usually updates us on what is happening in the Arab world more so than we update him about what is happening here. I assume that he is not very surprised by the Joint List — it is something Balad supported since 1999. We just haven’t succeeded until now.

Members of Knesset from the Arab parties negotiating the formation of the Joint List. (Courtesy of Balad)

Members of Knesset from the Arab parties negotiating the formation of the Joint List. (Courtesy of Balad)

Speaking of Bishara and the old guard, why don’t we see new blood in Balad? Even Hadash has brand new faces.

Balad underwent a revolution in 2007 after the Azmi Bishara controversy. The Balad of before is not the Balad of after. Basel Ghattes is a new MK, and this will be Haneen’s third term. Balad has a phenomenal, young generation that is only now coming into its own. But in Israeli politics there is the tragic phenomenon of the second generation. The second generation is always living in the shadow of the founders, this is how it was with the communist party and others. But I believe that the young generation, which is much more successful than us, will have its moment to shine soon.

Do you see the Joint List participating in the government in any way?

Absolutely not. Do you really see a government that will support the end of the occupation, the right of return and granting equal rights to all citizens?

Do you miss the days of doing research?

Look, my research dealt with the chemistry of happiness. And I miss it.

This article was first published on +972’s Hebrew-language sister site, Local Call. Read it in Hebrew here.

Special Coverage: 2015 Elections

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article

    * Required


    1. Bruce Gould

      Information: The United Nations Office For The Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs has a website that offers information on the occupation. Check out the video “How Long Does It Take To Demolish A House?”: http://www.ochaopt.org/


      Reply to Comment
    2. Pedro X

      The other face of Jamal Zalhalka.

      In 2006 after a suicide bombing killed 9 Israelis and injured 60, Jamal met with Hamas leaders to stand in solidarity with them.

      In 2006 after the 2nd Lebanon War, Jamal traveled to Lebanon and Syria in a show of solidarity for Hezbollah and the Syrian tyrant, Assad.

      In 2009 Jamal attended a pro-Hamas rally near the Gaza border which broadcast Hamas propaganda. At the rally Jamal claimed that Ehud Barak enjoyed listening to classical music and the killing of children in Gaza.

      In a 2012 Guardian op-ed he called for sanctions to be imposed on Israel for permitting Likud and Yisrael Beiteinu to run on a joint ticket in Israeli elections.

      In 2013 Jamal Zahalka stood at the Knesset podium and declared: “We [Palestinians] were here [in Israel] before you, and we will be here after you.” This was his veiled reference that the Jewish state of Israel would be destroyed by Arabs. This is his idea of co-existence.

      Zalhalka often speaks out against Israel in foreign countries and meets with organizations which are anti-zionist and pro-Hamas and Hezbollah. For example he accepted an invitation from Palestine House, an organization which has espoused support for Hamas and Hezbollah. The week before his attendance in July 2014 Palestine House held a rally waiving Hezbollah flags.

      At his lecture in Toronto to this racist group, Zalhalka reportedly called for a third intifada and destruction of the Jewish state. Blogworth reported having met Zalhalka and reported on the meeting:

      “It was no wonder Zahalka felt among those people like fish in water. During his “lecture” at Beit Zatoun the “distinguished” Member of the Knesset didn’t hide his hatred for Israel. He even called for a third intifada and the destruction of the country. When a young Jewish kapo (willing to support the “Palestinian” cause) asked Zahalka how the progressive Jews could collaborate with the “Palestinians,” the “Israeli politician” replied that they can’t work together with their oppressors.”

      Reply to Comment
      • Bruce Gould

        Only the Jews have history; King Shlomo the Great in 1854 B.C. is somehow used as a justification for Jewish ownership of all the land, but the Palestinians are a historyless people with no connection to the land.

        Reply to Comment
        • Bryan

          So are the Palestinians all dual citizens with a few spare passports at the ready who will slink off to Jordan or Iraq or any other of twenty Arab lands if only you pay them a few shekels?

          Reply to Comment
      • Felix Reichert

        Distoprtions, Distortions, as always. I’ll just rebut one of your ridiculous claims, since I’m lazy.

        But let’s just say that none of what you said is true, otherwise you would have provided sources.

        Okay, here we go:

        “In a 2012 Guardian op-ed he called for sanctions to be imposed on Israel for permitting Likud and Yisrael Beiteinu to run on a joint ticket in Israeli elections.”

        No he did not. He called for Sanctions because a Politician of the extreme right was on the verge of gaining major political power:

        “When Jörg Haider and his extreme right party entered the Austrian government, several European countries imposed sanctions. Lieberman is far more dangerous than Haider. His stature is proof that extremism has come to dominate in Israel. Should the kind of politics that are rejected in Europe be accommodated in the Holy Land?”

        It wasn’t about formalities like running on a joint list, it was for having a right-wing extremist in government.

        Here’s the whole op-ed:

        Reply to Comment
        • Pedro X

          The point is that he urged other countries to put sanctions on Israel because he was not happy with a political opponent joining his party to the Likud. He was asking other countries to interfere in the democratic process in Israel. It is up to Israelis to decide whom they want to represent them not some Arab MK who works for the interests of Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, and anybody but Israelis.

          Reply to Comment
          • Felix Reichert

            “The point is that he urged other countries to put sanctions on Israel because he was not happy with a political opponent joining his party to the Likud.”

            No he did not. He was asking other countries to put sanctions on Israel because a right-wing and religious extremist was foreseeably joining government.

            “He was asking other countries to interfere in the democratic process in Israel.”

            That he certainly did. Rightly so. It was about time, and still is. The Jörg Haider analogy is spot-on.

            “It is up to Israelis to decide whom they want to represent them not some Arab MK who works for the interests of Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, and anybody but Israelis.”

            How exactly does he work for the interests of these groups and countries?

            And before you blurt out more distortions, please provide the sources to go with your claims.

            Also, an election in a Parliamentary system is always messy. Unless there’s a party with an absolute majority of seats, voters tend to NEVER get what they voted for. If I voted for Merkel’s CDU (which I didn’t), I’d now have to contend with the Social Democrats as well, since they’ve formed a coalition.

            If I voted for any other party, I’d be in even less luck. I wouldn’t have gotten what I voted for at all.

            Reply to Comment
          • Pedro X

            “He was asking other countries to put sanctions on Israel because a right-wing and religious extremist was foreseeably joining government.”

            Of course Liberman is not a religious extremist of any sort. He is a nationalist, neither specifically right, center or left wing. He has served in right, center and left wing governments. In Sharon-Peres coalition he served as Minister of Transportation and later in Cabinet. He served in Olmert’s – Labor government as Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Strategic Affairs. In this position he advocated for Israel to join the EU and Nato.

            He served in the second Netanyahu and some members of Labor government again as Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister.

            Thus Liberman had already served in very high ranking government positions before November 5, 2012 when Jamal Zalhalka attempted to get foreign governments to sanction Israel for opposing the joining of the two parties on a common list.

            He was advocating against his own country, his state’s citizens rights to elect whom they want and the right of the people to determine the makeup of their government, whether that be a minority or majority government.

            Reply to Comment
          • Felix Reichert

            First of all Lieberman was never the member of a “Labor government”, but of a coalition government in which Labor was minor party. It was a Kadima government.

            Secondly, he has never served in a left wing government.

            Thirdly, it is arguable if he ever served in a center government. If you take the Israeli concept of left & right, that might actually be true.

            If you take the concept of left & right everybody else the world over has, including political science, then it is false.

            “Thus Liberman had already served in very high ranking government positions before November 5, 2012 when Jamal Zalhalka attempted to get foreign governments to sanction Israel for opposing the joining of the two parties on a common list.”

            Which shows you that it was about time for a boycott. Now of course Lieberman’s positions have shifted from the right to the extreme right over the years (like a lot of Israeli politics), making it even more logical to call for a boycott at the time.

            And again: unless there is an absolute majority party people NEVER “determine the makeup of their government”. At least not a majority of people.

            In a minority government things are even less clear. How exactly do people “determine the makeup of their government” if there is a minority government?

            “Some” people determine the makeup of a government in a parliamentary democracy. Never directly, mind you.

            First the voters choose a party. They usually cannot choose a coalition. Then politicians choose a coalition partner, which might be approved by a majority of their voters, or it might not.

            Reply to Comment
      • Felix Reichert

        Let’s clear up another one of your distortions, it’s just so easy…

        “In 2013 Jamal Zahalka stood at the Knesset podium and declared: “We [Palestinians] were here [in Israel] before you, and we will be here after you.” This was his veiled reference that the Jewish state of Israel would be destroyed by Arabs. This is his idea of co-existence.”


        “Zahalka later clarified that his attack on Habayit Hayehudi MKs was directed ‘against racists, not Jews.'”

        Reply to Comment
        • Pedro X

          Netanyahu and the other members of the Knesset took the Arab Mk’s comments at face value. Netanyahu replied and put the racist Arab Mk in his place.


          Reply to Comment
          • Felix Reichert

            And what was the face value of the Arab MK’s statement? Did he mention Jews?

            Yes or no?

            Reply to Comment
          • Pedro X

            His comments obviously referred to Jews. This is how Netanyahu and the other members of the Knesset took it. This was the plain meaning of his words.

            Reply to Comment
          • Felix Reichert

            So people can’t be misunderstood? People can’t misunderstand other people?

            People can’t poorly choose their words when in anger?

            I’d love to have more context on his statement in the Knesset. But what is absolutely clear is that you are wrong, and are maliciously distorting the facts.

            What did he say right before the sentence you claim was aimed at Jews? Come on, tell me? Or should I embarass you even more?

            Reply to Comment
          • Pedro X

            The context of Jamal Zahalka’s racist comments was that the comments were made on July 31, 2013 during a Knesset debate on a referendum bill ensuring that the Israeli public could vote on any agreement with the PA. Jamal Zahalka said (according to IsraelHayom and Algemenier

            “that the bill was irrelevant because it referred to “occupied territory, and as such, what applies is international law; the referendum should apply to the nations of the world.”

            Habayit Hayehudi lawmakers, replied

            “You are the foreigners in this land”

            Jamal Zahalka responded that

            “You’re an enemy of peace. We were here before you, and we’ll be here after you.”

            The context was clear. Having suggested Israelis were foreigners occupying another’s land and that Israel had no right to hold a referendum over someone else’s land, the Habayit Hayehudi lawmakers responding Arabs were the foreigners, he called Jews the enemy of peace, and that Arabs had been here before Jews and would remain after the Jews were made gone. The context could not be clearer.


            Afterwards Jamal Zahalka tried to explain away his racist remarks.

            Reply to Comment
          • Felix Reichert

            Yep, the context was clear:

            Enemies of peace (e.g. racists) came after friends of peace. Whatever that means.

            Reply to Comment
          • Felix Reichert

            “he called Jews the enemy of peace”

            No he did not. He called Habayit Hayehudi lawmakers enemies of peace.

            Which they are.

            The context could not be clearer.

            Reply to Comment
    3. Richard

      The negotiations stop and start anew, but always demand that Israel give up land. This land is the land of God. God promised to return Israel to it after he scattered the Jews to the nations of the world. That began in 70 AD. Israel became a nation again in 1948 and EZ 36 points out that God would return Israel. It should be obvious that giving away ANY of Gods land is a sin against God regardless of the reason. I wrote a small book about the end times and prophecy and the tribulation period. It’s just for your information and consideration and it’s free. I don’t even accept donations on my or anyone else’s behalf. It’s a short read of about 7 pages. I encourage you to take a look. http://www.booksie.com/religion_and_spirituality/book/richard_b_barnes/after-the-rapture-whats-next

      Reply to Comment
      • Felix Reichert

        Thanks for making a great case for Anti-Zionists and Pro-Palestinian activists all over the world!

        Honestly, thank you!

        Reply to Comment
      • Josh

        Who is this God guy? Can he prove he is the owner of the land, has he documents about that? No? So step up and let grown up rationalists talk

        Reply to Comment
        • Bryan

          I am equally dubious about the guy – I have never seen him, or spoken to him, or seen good deeds he has executed, but most people who believe he is out there believe he is a universal sought of guy, who created the entire world and all its land, and also a fair guy who could not possibly show favours to one small people discriminating against the rest of humanity. They say he wants all people to live in peace and harmony and justice. So if for the sake of argument we accept the hypothesis, he loves the Palestinians as much as anyone else, and hates to see their dispossession and oppression.

          Reply to Comment
    4. Mikesailor

      Another wonderful tale of Zionist fancy courtesy of our very own Pedro Pan has been proven false. Someday he will stop being a “Lost Boy” who won’t grow up but as long as he plays in the litter box with Hairball I wouldn’t count on his evolution. As to Richard: Numerous souls over the years have tried to predict the end of the world and every one has been proven wrong. Especially sad are the ones who commit suicide a la Masada because they believe there is something noble about mass self-death. I would submit that if there is an end to this world, it will not be telegraphed and God will have nothing to do with it. I always love how man believes that God is bound by a contract with certain groups in this world although, as far as I know, God has never signed anything himself nor accepted to be bound by man. Height of arrogance, isn’t it? God’s refusal to be subservient to whatever BS man has published? As for the article, Zahalka is correct that he won’t be asked to join a “Zionist” list and neither will the other “Arabs”. That would contravene everything Zionism stands for: the ethnic/religious/cultural supremacy of the Jews. As for advocating a “citizenship with equal rights and responsibilities for all” again he is advocating an end to Zionism. His natural allies should be “secular” Jews who want to limit if not eliminate the religious control of government, and the Mizrahim who have never gotten a fair shake from the Ashkenazi-controlled regimes. But both groups feel that being a Jew in a Zionist state, with all the privileges thereof, is worth more than a state built upon the concept of justice for all. Such tribalism, I would submit, is not only the heart of Zionism but the major reason for antisemitism worldwide. Nevertheless, although I am not sanguine about the future, I wish the Arab list all the best.

      Reply to Comment
    5. Viktor Arajs

      What can Balad offer the Jewish voter? … a one way ticket to Brooklyn. That would finalize things

      Reply to Comment
    6. Click here to load previous comments