Israeli Opposition Leaders Are Wary of Alliance With Arab Parties. But Voters Are Surprisingly Open to It

By Michal Sella and Noam GidronAs of now, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appears to be buoyed by Israel's ostensible wartime achievements, which is why members of his Likud party are increasingly discussing his desire to move the elections up to June. The expectation is that an early election would shift those of the "bloc of change" into high gear and strengthen cooperation between all the opposition parties, especially after Arab party leaders recently announced their joint run. That move is expected to boost Arab voter turnout, which has declined in recent years, and to make it harder for Netanyahu to form a new government.

 

If so, why did we not hear jubilant cries from the leaders of the opposition parties after this announcement?

 

The reason is that October 7, 2023, produced a new oxymoron in Israeli politics: The leaders of the "government of change" (from June 2021 until December 2022, under rotating premiers Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid) – who were only able to cobble together their ruling coalition thanks to a partnership with the United Arab List, led by Mansour Abbas – are now ruling out any possibility of cooperating with an Arab party. They are taking this position even though it's clear to everyone that cooperation between the two sides could significantly increase the prospects of replacing the present government.

 

Nevertheless, opposition leader MK Lapid (Yesh Atid) is refusing to sit in a coalition with Arabs; and MK Benny Gantz (leader of the National Unity Party) has launched a campaign against "extremists on both sides," which draws a comparison between a pyromaniac national security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir (Otzma Yehudit), and Abbas, who consistently reiterates his commitment to forging a Jewish-Arab partnership. Meanwhile, Naftali Bennett filed a complaint with the Central Elections Committee against Likud; the committee recently ordered that the party delete a doctored photofrom its X account showing the former prime minister with leaders of the Arab parties when they made their declaration of unity.

 

Let's return to those cries of jubilation (or, rather, their absence). Until October 6, there had been a spectacular, months-long public protest in the country against the government's regime coup. Masses took to the streets in the name of democracy, which was being trampled underfoot; after all, one must remember, equal political rights are a basic tenet of democracy. But since the war broke out in Gaza, some of our opposition leaders have stopped leading and are now being led in many areas – notably, when it comes to their attitude toward the Arab parties.

 

Every morning they stick a finger out the window to check which way the wind is blowing. They look at the polls in order to ascertain whether they are allowed to broach the idea of a partnership with the Arab parties that day, instead of working to shape public opinion in a way that will facilitate their rise to power.

 

Moreover, they are becoming captive to Netanyahu's moves. When he flirts with the idea of forming a coalition with Abbas' UAL, these leaders don't object. But when the right wing treats the Arab community like a punching bag in order to divert the public's attention from the debacle of October 7, some of them actually help intensify that distraction instead of fighting it.

Thus, the opposition leaders' only excuse for taking this approach is that after October 7, their imagined base isn't capable of entertaining the idea of an Arab party in the coalition.

 

However, the latest "Partnership Index," based on an annual survey conducted by Givat Haviva – The Center for Shared Society, shows that the vaunted base takes a different view. The index is based on a survey conducted together with Midgam, a market research and public opinion firm, and its founder, Mano Geva, among 422 respondents who constitute a representative sample of the adult Jewish population, and 280 others who constitute a representative sample of the adult Arab population.

 

The question posed by the Partnership Index survey was: "Do you support or oppose involving an Arab party in the coalition?" An analysis of the data based on respondents' self-described political worldview (right, center or left) found that among those identifying as centrists 41 percent support the co-option of an Arab party into a future coalition, 47 percent said they are against that and 12 percent said they don't know. An analysis of respondents supporting the so-called bloc of change revealed that 43 percent support bringing in an Arab party, 48 percent are against and 8 percent don't know.

 

These figures show that there is no clear preference one way or the other among centrist voters on this issue, but instead a feeling of openness vis-à-vis broader political and moral considerations.

 

In addition, a majority of 58 percent who categorize themselves as centrists as well as 56 percent of those who stated that they would vote for an opposition party do not harbor unequivocal views on this question, but are only "somewhat against" (26 percent) or "somewhat support" bringing an Arab party into the government.

 

As for the idea of a coalition being supported by an Arab party "from the outside," among those who declared they opposed including such a party in a coalition, more than a quarter (26 percent, constituting 15 percent of all centrist voters) would agree to having outside support from such a party; among right-wing voters who are against a coalition partnership, 12 percent responded that they would accept outside support.

 

In other words, there is a sizable proportion of supporters of opposition parties who might support leaders intent on forging Jewish-Arab cooperation. And there is good reason to assume that this could happen – not least because it has already happened in the past, in the case of the successful cooperation with the UAL during the period of the Bennett-Lapid government.

Moreover, data collected by one of us (Noam Gidron) together with Prof. Lior Sheffer, from Tel Aviv University's School of Political Science, Government, and International Affairs, shows that when leaders of the parties in the Bennett-Lapid government opted for cooperation with the UAL, many of their voters followed suit.

 

Surveys conducted before the formation of the government of change, and afterward, examined how the Jewish public feels toward different parties by asking a simple question: How would you rate the parties on a scale of 0 (negative feeling) to 10 (positive feeling). After formation of that government, voters for the diverse parties that were part of the Bennett-Lapid coalition expressed more positive feelings toward the UAL.

This finding is valid not only for "immediate suspects" such as Yesh Atid voters; it also holds for supporters of Yisrael Beiteinu, led by MK Avigdor Lieberman, which has a long history of slamming the country's Arab community and its representatives in the Knesset.

 

These results – indicating a positive shift in the way the public perceives an Arab party, namely UAL, in the wake of its participation in the previous coalition – may appear surprising. But in fact they reflect well-established findings in political science studies that relate to affective polarization, i.e., dislike and animosity across political divides, between supporters of rival parties. Coalitions are not only the embodiment of an agreement to apportion rule to different politicians; they also function as a strong, clear message to the general public as to which parties are considered to belong to "our side."

 

Studies conducted over time in various countries have found that cooperation in the framework of a coalition leads to more positive feelings among the voters affiliated with the various parties that banded together to form that coalition. In other words, the actions of the parties influence the attitudes of their voters. The positive change in attitude toward the UAL among voters for the parties in the Bennett-Lapid government – keeping in mind all the unique circumstances of the Israeli case – precisely reflects patterns found overseas. Determined leaders can definitely take focused action to influence attitudes among the public that supports them, including on questions of who should belong to a particular coalition.

The cardinal issue that will affect the coming election, no less, will thus hinge on the ability of the heads of the centrist parties and of the bloc of change to assume the role of leaders and not followers. In other words, their realization of the fact that they indeed have the ability to influence their voters and to lead them toward the only path that could facilitate political change and renewal.

 

This point is particularly important when it comes to the political representation of 20 percent of Israel's citizens. There is a good chance that the way to power of the parties leading the opposition will have to entail cooperation with the Arab parties. There apparently is a significant group of opposition voters who are receptive to this idea. They deserve a leadership that knows how to lead.

 

Michal Sella is CEO of Givat Haviva – The Center for a Shared Society. Prof. Noam Gidron is on the faculty of the Department of Political Science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.