1.
Efforts from familiar quarters have sought to equate the Arab parties with the ultra-Orthodox factions by branding both as "non-Zionist." The aim is to tarnish the historic partnership between the current coalition and the ultra-Orthodox parties. The irony is that some of those who portray their own people as adversaries praise the idea of forming a coalition with Arab parties against the Jewish majority and oppose the Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People.
Intellectual laziness tends to ignore nuance and distinction. It is true that there were sharp ideological disputes between ultra-Orthodox Judaism and the various Zionist movements in the past, but those debates are now largely the domain of historians and scholars. Today, the ultra-Orthodox community accepts the existence of the state and seeks to be part of it. The historic argument has been settled; the current debate centers on the character and content of the state.
2.
To label the ultra-Orthodox as "non-Zionist" cheapens Zionism. The core ethos of Zionism is the belief in the Jewish people's right to return home to Zion, their historic homeland. Zionism was the political expression of a generational dream first articulated in the Bible: "When the Lord restored the fortunes of Zion, we were like those who dreamed," the Psalmist wrote. The Prophet Isaiah, in the eighth century BCE, spoke of the redeemed returning from exile: "And the ransomed of the Lord shall return, and come to Zion with singing; everlasting joy shall be upon their heads." Even Jeremiah, the prophet of destruction, saw through his tears to our era: "And I will take you one from a city and two from a family, and I will bring you to Zion."
The return to Zion is the vision around which Jews united throughout exile and whose realization they longed to see. On this fundamental level, an overwhelming majority of the ultra-Orthodox accept the State of Israel as the fulfilment of that vision. To claim that today's ultra-Orthodox are not Zionist, meaning that they do not accept the vision of the Jewish return to Zion, is to deny the prophetic foundation of Zionism itself.
3.
Critics argue that the ultra-Orthodox do not share the secular vision of the state. That is not entirely accurate; it depends on the sphere in question. In the military, the economy, science, urban life, high technology, civil society organizations and systems of governance, the ultra-Orthodox participate in and contribute to the prevailing national framework. The main disagreements lie in matters of culture, law and religion-state relations, and even within the broader Israeli public there are divergent worldviews on these issues. Indeed, the ultra-Orthodox contend that the state is not sufficiently Jewish in these areas, meaning that they fundamentally accept the vision of a Jewish state but differ over its expression.
4.
The situation is different when it comes to the Arab parties. It is true that a large portion of their constituency has come to terms with Israel's existence as a Jewish state, as MK Mansour Abbas has said. But this acceptance is framed as acknowledgment of a present reality. The future vision of all the Arab parties, including that of Abbas, is to transform Israel's identity from a Jewish state into a "state of all its nationalities."
It is important to be precise. Not a "state of all its citizens," as the common phrase goes, since that already describes the current legal reality: all Israeli citizens enjoy equal civil rights. Rather, the vision articulated by the Arab parties and the High Follow-Up Committee for Arab Citizens of Israel is to recognize Israel's Arab citizens as a national minority with rights equal in national status to those of the Jewish majority. In other words, they oppose the foundational Zionist vision of the Jewish return to Zion.
In fact, they deny the Jewish people's historical, legal and religious rights to this land, describing Israel as "the product of a colonialist act." In an interview I published in Israel Hayom, Dr. Jamal Zahalka, now chairman of the High Follow-Up Committee, likened the State of Israel to a child born of rape, saying that Zionism had raped "Palestine."
5.
Hatred of Likud and its leader, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has led some to align themselves with elements that challenge the very basis of Israel's existence, even if their rhetoric sounds moderate. A similar process unfolded in New York with Zohran Mamdani, where some of his Jewish supporters are now sounding the alarm.
One must be wary of "taqiyya," a concept referring to permissible deception in Islam in dealings with an enemy. If Arab parties are to be included in a coalition, the government must not be dependent on their votes but should rely on at least 61 MKs who share the Zionist vision of the Jewish state, with Arab support serving only as an addition. This would avoid placing Arab MKs in direct conflict on matters of foreign policy and security, and would safeguard Israel's character and identity as the sole state of the Jewish people.
