The following article, entitled "Accepting Segalovitz’s conditions is a dangerous step backwards", was written by Ofer Cassif, member of the Israeli Parliament for Hadash and a member of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of Israel. It was published in Zo Khadarek, organ of the Party. It assesses the the conditions set by MK Yoav Segalovitz of Ra'am, for Hadash's political partnership and cooperation with Ra’am for the upcoming elections.
In the public debate surrounding the conditions reportedly set by MK Yoav Segalovitz for political partnership and cooperation with Ra’am—explicit recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and the promotion of mandatory civic service for all Arab citizens—the proposal has been presented in the political mainstream as a moderate, bridge-building and pragmatic initiative. However, a deeper analysis of these conditions reveals that beneath the veneer of “partnership” lies a harmful conception that threatens to fundamentally erode the already limited status and rights of Israel’s Arab citizens.
Accepting Segalovitz’s conditions is not a step forward toward integration, but a dangerous step backward. It institutionalizes a mechanism of political and civic subordination and establishes a model that is fundamentally contrary to two basic democratic principles: first, that there can be neither equality nor civil rights without national equality and national rights; and second, that civil rights are not a subject for bargaining, but fundamental rights granted to citizens solely by virtue of their citizenship.
One of the central errors in the discourse known as “liberal Zionism” is the attempt to reduce the problem of discrimination against Arab citizens of Israel to the narrow civic dimension alone—issues of infrastructure, budgets, crime, employment and welfare—while completely disconnecting it from national identity. The Arab public in Israel is not an “accidental” minority, nor a religious or social grouping without historical ties, but an indigenous national minority living in its homeland.
When Arab citizens and their leaders are presented with a demand to recognize Israel as a “Jewish state,” they are effectively being asked to grant moral and political legitimacy to a structure that defines the state as being exclusively owned by one national group, and consequently to a structure in which national or ethnic supremacy is institutionalized, contrary to the most basic principles of modern democracy. Genuine equality cannot exist in a reality in which the state constitutionally and symbolically belongs only to some of its citizens, while others are expected to welcome their relegation to the margins.
National rights are not a privilege; they include recognition of the history, narrative, language, culture and collective connection of the minority to the space in which it lives. When national rights are violated, civil equality effectively becomes an illusion and an empty slogan. A citizen whose national identity is excluded is defined in advance as a second-class citizen, if not worse. Therefore, Segalovitz’s condition requiring recognition of the state’s Jewish character forces the Arab minority to abandon its legitimate demand for full national equality as the foundation of equal citizenship—a fundamentally unacceptable dilemma that undermines the foundations of justice.
The second part of Segalovitz’s conditions—the imposition of civic service as a condition for integration and legitimacy—reflects a serious philosophical and political failure concerning the essence of citizenship. In a democratic state, fundamental rights are not a reward for good behavior, compensation for loyalty, nor something traded on the stock exchange of political gestures. Civil, social and political rights are inherent rights. They belong to every citizen, by virtue of their being citizens, regardless of what they do, what they believe, or what duties they perform.
Turning rights into a “give-and-take” transaction shifts the burden and responsibility from the state that discriminates to the victim of discrimination. The logic behind such a condition implicitly argues: “If you serve and demonstrate loyalty, you will receive equality; if you do not, do not complain about discrimination.” Apart from the falsehood of this claim (as demonstrated by the discrimination against the Druze despite their military service), it represents the state’s complete abdication of its fundamental and unconditional obligation to provide equality and justice to all its inhabitants without qualification.
Moreover, imposing civic service in a framework designed and administered by the institutions of the majority places young Arabs in a disadvantaged position. It requires them to prove their “legitimate citizenship” through mechanisms in whose design they had no part, thereby reinforcing relations of authority and paternalism. Human and civil rights are not something that must be “earned” or paid for with ideological currency; they are the unconditional foundation of the social contract.
Accepting Segalovitz’s conditions is a dangerous reversal of the proper order. Instead of demanding that the state rectify decades of structural discrimination, dispossession and land confiscation, house demolitions, employment and political exclusion, and discriminatory laws (such as the Nation-State Law), these conditions place the burden on the Arab-Palestinian national minority: it must submit to the conditions of the majority in order to receive crumbs of legitimacy.
Segalovitz’s conditions are precisely the opposite of everything required to build a genuine partnership. They replace the struggle for justice and substantive equality with a willingness to accept conditional and, at best, second-class citizenship. Genuine partnership is not built on an ultimatum from a majority afraid of losing its privileges, but on mutual recognition, full national equality, and an uncompromising understanding that civil rights are absolute and are not for sale.
In contrast to these discriminatory conditions, the principles represented by Hadash embody the true and pure essence of democracy. Opposition to supremacy of any kind, together with an uncompromising demand for full civil and national equality, social justice and a just peace, is not an extremist position, as it is sometimes portrayed in the political mainstream, but precisely the opposite. Extremism is the demand that an indigenous minority abolish its identity, prove its loyalty and accept its constitutional inferiority vis-à -vis the majority and its privileged rights. Genuine democracy, by contrast, categorically rejects the idea that one group possesses supremacy over, or exclusive ownership of, the state. The model proposed by Hadash is not one of submission or paternalism, but of equal Jewish-Arab political and civic partnership, based on justice, mutual recognition of the rights of both peoples, and a profound understanding that absolute and unconditional equality is not a threat to society, but a condition for the existence of a free and just society—if not for its very existence at all.
