+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

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

Jewish-Arab alliances are our best shot against segregation

Israel is already a binational state based on ethnic segregation. The struggle to turn it into an inclusive one must be fought by Jews and Palestinians — together. A response to Rami Younis and Orly Noy.

International activists confront an Israeli skunk canon during a protest in Bil'in, West Bank, 2001. Ahmad al-Bazz / Activestills.org

Activists confront an Israeli skunk canon during a protest in Bil’in, West Bank. (Ahmad al-Bazz/Activestills.org)

In their article, “Let’s stop talking about a false ‘Jewish-Arab partnership,’” +972 writers Orly Noy and Rami Younis criticize calls for establishing a Jewish-Arab party on what appears to be the ruins of the Israeli left following last week’s elections. While I identify with some of their arguments, their bottom line is problematic, and their criticism of other Israeli left-wing groups is wrong and often unfair.

Let’s begin by agreeing. It is true that for many Jewish Israelis, including on the left, Jewish-Arab partnership includes a division between “good Arabs” who are worthy of alliance and illegitimate Arabs. This, of course, is not real partnership, but rather an attempt to divide and conquer, and Palestinians have every right to be suspicious of it.

Yet I do not believe this claim applies to the entirety of the Israeli left. Younis and Noy’s article deliberately distorts reality, as if establishing a joint framework with some Palestinians delegitimizes all the other Palestinians. There are cases, of course, in which this is true. But there are many other cases in which it is not. It certainly cannot be used as a reason for invalidating the very idea of partnership.

Secondly, the idea that political partnerships reproduce societal power relations (which tend to favor Ashkenazi Jewish men) is nothing new. Power relations exist almost everywhere; the idea that one can circumvent them is the real fallacy. The solution is developing awareness, while creating mechanisms and a culture of equality within those frameworks.



I would not insist on these points had Younis and Noy posited an alternative. One would be able forgo these joint political frameworks had we a different and effective model for change. We all know the model of separation, and we know where it leads to. Separation is the status quo. Israel is a segregationist, exploitative binational state (within both ’48 and ’67 borders). The question is how to turn it into an inclusive, just state based on equality (within ’48 or ’67 borders). In my eyes, partnership is the radical approach — as long as it is not done artificially, but within the framework of a political movement that seeks real change.

At the end of their article, Younis and Noy suggest an alternative with which I identify: solidarity. They believe, as do I, that the oppressed group must lead the struggle, while Jews must take it upon themselves to stand back and offer their support. There are places in which this idea can work. When I came to protests at the West Bank village of Bil’in, I did so out of solidarity. I did not deign to tell Palestinians how they should lead their struggle — I simply marched alongside them.

But I am not certain that one can base a mass movement, or even a significant parliamentary framework, on this principle. The reason is that Younis and Noy demand that Jews give up their Jewish Israeli identity, since it is a “privileged” identity vis-à-vis Palestinians. There are very few Israelis who will heed this call, and it is no coincidence that those who do so are the most privileged of all. After all, it is usually those who feel complete security in their socio-economic and cultural status who can afford to make these concessions.

Israeli activists march during a protest in front of the Israeli army headquarter in Tel Aviv city in solidarity with the March of Return of the Gaza Strip and against the Israeli blockade, Israel, March 30, 2019. (Keren Manor/Activestills.org)

Israeli activists march during a protest in front of the Israeli army headquarter in Tel Aviv city in solidarity with the March of Return of the Gaza Strip and against the Israeli blockade, Israel, March 30, 2019. (Keren Manor/Activestills.org)

Jews with fewer privileges, on the other hand, hold on to their Jewish and Israeli identities as a form of social and economic protection. Those who demand they strip themselves of all privileges when facing Palestinians — in exchange for some vague promises of a utopian future — have set the entry bar unfeasibly high.

Finally, one must remember that politics occur between people. I was part of too many left-wing groups in which newcomers were automatically met with accusations of naïveté or were viewed as reactionary for their ideas. That’s a shame, because it is within the framework of these kinds of partnership that real change can occur. Those who start to work with Palestinians on a daily basis learn to understand the meaning of the right of return or the legitimacy of Palestinian political parties in a way that theory in itself cannot possibly explain. However, none of this will happen if we continue with ideological gatekeeping. In a sense, it is strange that the most radical voices insist on rehashing definitions of “Zionist” and “non-Zionist” as if they themselves were members of Likud.

I will be glad to know that these elections could lead to another attempt at creating a Jewish-Arab framework, and I’m not too concerned whether it happens in Hadash, Meretz, etc. In fact, the growing number of Palestinians who vote Meretz (and, ironically, the decreasing number of Israeli Jews) has created a good opportunity for this attempt. Their caricaturization of the Jewish-Arab group Standing Together also does a disservice to the potential the group holds.

Younis and Noy are right about one thing: the ball, as usual, is in the Jews’ court.

This article was first published in Hebrew on Local Call. Read it here.

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. Tommy Goldberg

      Thank you, Jewish man, for explaining which Arab criticisms of the “partnership” framework are legitimate and which aren’t.

      You couldn’t have proven Rami’s and Ori’s point any better.

      Reply to Comment
      • James

        Tommy appears to be saying that Jews must check our brains at the door and simply parrot whatever the (most hardcore radical) Palestinian Arabs say. Doubtful that he’ll find many takers.

        Reply to Comment
      • Ben

        I think this is too facile an identity politics slogan to throw at Sheizaf and what he is saying here and try to silence him. Sheizaf is not simply “Jewish man,” he’s way more “over” that than most, more committed, experienced and insightful than that, and his engagement with Younis and Noy here is more subtle than that. Sheizaf, author of “Why I oppose recognizing Israel as a Jewish state,” is not Jew-splaining. In my view he’s the voice of reality and some hard won wisdom about activism. Now I say he is more “over” that than most, but that leaves most. Yet he is then not an impossible exception, he is an example.

        He started out saying where he agreed. To not be able then to say where he disagrees, and to be told he can’t be permitted to defend the idea of Jewish-Arab partnership that Younis and Noy deride leads to asking why then Orly Noy gets to write an article in partnership with Rami Younis? Is that co-writing not a partnership? Should Noy have, taking her own medicine, stood back and said, “I can’t partner with you, Younis, because I’m Jewish”? She gets to because she’s female and non-Ashkenazi and Sheizaf can’t because he’s male and Ashkenazi? And Isn’t +972 Magazine a Jewish-Arab partnership? And this is not for a second to deny power asymmetries, which I don’t see Sheizaf doing. But his argument is crystallized in his saying “Power relations exist almost everywhere; the idea that one can circumvent them is the real fallacy. The solution is developing awareness, while creating mechanisms and a culture of equality within those frameworks.”

        I think Younis, Noy and Sheizaf have started a fruitful interchange here and I don’t read Sheizaf as telling them they’re all wrong. But some of Younis’ and Noy’s writing seems at once fuzzy and over-refined. For example, ‘the idea of Jewish-Arab partnership assumes symmetry. In that sense, it is a slightly updated version of the concept of “coexistence.”’ Well, no, not exactly, it does not HAVE to assume that and no, co-existence is not exactly partnership, either in common sense English usage or in the refined, insiderish, knowing sense used here.

        Reply to Comment
    2. Alon

      It fills me with joy – to see how the leftist collaborators quarrel about some quite unimportant wording on the pity ruins of their ideology. It’s only thing left to them, as they realize that their struggle is already lost. They cannot achieve majority even joining radical Islamists.

      Reply to Comment