How convenient it is for the coalition that characters like Joint Arab List MKs Ofer Cassif and Ahmad Tibi are part of the opposition. When they are caught on camera hitting a police officer or disrupting police in the line of duty, then the coalition can adopt its combative tone. Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and Public Security Minister Omer Barlev can put on a grave expression and condemn the opposition MKs for crossing a red line, and they can back up the police and the security forces while deputy minister Abir Kara collects signatures to impeach Cassif for his "anti-Israel" comportment.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
But the maelstrom surrounding Cassif's slap of a police officer is no more than a veil, and an efficient one at that, for the government's other chagrins. Cassif is the same Cassif and Tibi is the same Tibi – both of them are at the far end of the opposition and are well known for their constant and flagrant provocations against the core values of Israeli statehood. The very same statehood that the "government of change" swore to rehabilitate.
If we wish to pretend to be shocked by an anti-Israel stance and debasement of the security forces then we should do so with regard to someone who was allowed to walk into the halls of Israeli statehood thanks to a "political accident." I am referring to Ra'am MK Waleed Taha who said: "How ugly and pitiful is the face of the damned occupation! The occupation murdered Shireen Abu Akleh in cold blood, and also prevents the masses from participating in the pain of her death."
Yamina MK Nir Orbach immediately responded "the fundamental error is in the word 'occupation'" adding, "enough of this mendacious terminology." This led his coalition colleague Meretz MK Mossi Raz to suggest that he look up, "the definition of the term occupation before claiming it does not exist." While it's nice that the opportunity has been found to conduct a symposium on the semantics of the Israeli-Arab conflict, occupation or not, the key term in Taha's tweet was "murder in cold blood."
Taha may have attributed the "murder" of the journalist to an abstract – "the damned occupation" – but it often happens that abstract markers have concrete significance: The occupation is the state of Israel and its executors are security forces. They, in an inference, that even a child could understand, play the role of the murders. One has to admit that this is a far stronger slap in the face primarily because it was the Chairman of the Internal Affairs Committee of Israel's parliament whose palm slapped our collective cheek.
The damage in terms of public diplomacy is marginal; the Government of Israel is in any event presenting a position here that is somewhat ambivalent with regards to Abu Akleh's death. What is more troubling is that Walid Taha comes from somewhere that is in essence no different from where Cassif and Tibi come from.
The fact that it is Cassif and Tibi, and not Taha, who upset the serenity of the coalition's leaders hints at something deeper. We can tell ourselves some kind of Orientalist story about "bad Arabs" and "good Arabs" but the reality is that the coalition partnership with an Arab party has not brought about the expected historic change.
Just as during Oslo, political leaders wax poetic wax lyrical about accepting the narrative of the "other" and pat each other on the back for their "courage" in creating change, but here on the ground, the tensions between sectors of Israeli society are only getting worse, and the violence of recent months has deepened suspicion. Incitement in the mosques, marches of rage, T-shirts with a rifle insignia and we haven't even begun as a society to digest the significance of the terrorist attacks that emanated from Hura and Umm al-Fahm.
Mansour Abbas is a courageous leader: He is knocking on the coalition's door, but we can't feel it here on the ground. The government's dependence on Ra'am just adds insult to injury: When the coalition gives into Ra'am's budgetary demands just to gain another temporary advantage in the plenum, it paints Israel's Arabs, perhaps against their will, as those who have sent their representatives as a cynical pressure and extortion group that identifies weakness and not as a group determined to fight for coexistence. Is that what this partnership is about? Avoiding poisonous rhetoric and passing budgets.
The government of change is in this way destroying the vision of a partnership between Jews and Arabs and giving it a bad name. Just as Ehud Barak destroyed the Left with the Oslo process, do not be surprised if, like Barak, the government of change ends up claiming the credit for proving that is no partner.
Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!
