Analysis: Elections in Israel. The ‘Arab factor’ between Eisenkot and Netanyahu
Israel is preparing for general elections on 27 October, with lists and candidates submitted by 8 September. The campaign focuses on incumbent Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his main rival, former Army Chief Gadi Eisenkot, leader of Yashar. The Arab vote is seen as potentially decisive for the opposition to Israel’s radical right, a factor highlighted by recent appeals. Yair Golan of the Democrats has urged Arab Israelis to turn out in large numbers, offering a direct call in Arabic. Arab Israelis traditionally have a low turnout, making their participation a key factor in the election outcome.
20 days ago
Israel’s October 27 general election is presented as a contest centered on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former army chief Gadi Eisenkot, but the participation and alliances of Arab citizens could determine whether either bloc can form a government. Polls cited in the article show both major blocs short of the 61 seats required for a Knesset majority. 1
September 8 was the deadline for submitting electoral lists and candidates. Netanyahu is seeking another term as leader of Likud, while Eisenkot, who heads the Yashar party, is described as his principal challenger. 1
Recent polling cited by the article projects 25 seats for Yashar and 21 for Likud. Eisenkot’s broader bloc is estimated at 57 seats and Netanyahu’s at 52, leaving both below the 61-seat threshold needed to govern. 1
Arab citizens make up approximately one-fifth of Israel’s population, but their turnout has traditionally been lower than the national average and many view the political system with distrust. In the previous election, Arab turnout was 53%, compared with a general turnout rate 17 percentage points higher. 1
The article identifies Yair Golan, leader of the Democrats, as one of the politicians urging Arab Israelis to vote in large numbers. In an Arabic-language video with Knesset member Gilad Kariv, Golan said that voting on October 27 would prevent Netanyahu from remaining prime minister and argued that abstention would effectively benefit National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir. 1
Higher Arab participation could increase Arab representation in the Knesset and make it more difficult for smaller right-wing parties to pass the 3.25% electoral threshold. The article therefore portrays Arab voters and parties as potentially decisive in coalition formation. 1
Arab turnout reached 65% in 2020, when four parties ran together on the United Arab List; those parties won 15 seats, their highest total. The current election is more divided, with Hadash, Ta’al, and Balad forming a common alliance while Mansour Abbas’s Ra’am is running separately. 1
A survey cited in the article found that 38% of Arab voters favored the Hadash-Ta’al-Balad alliance, while 19% preferred Ra’am. Another 7% supported Makom Lekulanu, a new party associated with the Standing Together peace movement and led by Arab activist Rula Daood and Jewish activist Alon Lee-Green. 1
Makom Lekulanu is described as being below the electoral threshold, although it could attract Arab voters who are dissatisfied with established parties. The party has reportedly sought a last-minute agreement with Hadash-Ta’al-Balad to add its candidates, but the article considers such an arrangement unlikely. 1
The article says many Arab citizens fear another Netanyahu-led government involving Ben Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich. It links those concerns to settler and extremist violence, the treatment of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, and the marginalization of Arab citizens inside Israel. 1
Arab communities in northern Israel are also described as facing a persistent crime wave, along with inadequate public services and insufficient policing. These concerns are presented as possible motivations for greater electoral participation. 1
A notable feature of the campaign is Yoav Segalovitz’s decision to run with Ra’am. Segalovitz is Jewish, secular, Zionist, a former senior police officer, and a former Yesh Atid lawmaker; his candidacy with an Arab party is presented as unusual because of his connections to Israel’s political and security establishment. 1
Segalovitz’s decision has drawn criticism from other Arab-Israeli parties, but the article places it within Abbas’s effort to move Ra’am beyond its original Islamist identity and emphasize social and economic issues affecting Arab citizens. 1
Segalovitz says his partnership with Abbas is intended to bridge Jewish-Arab divisions. He describes the two men as having different religious and ethnic backgrounds but sharing an Israeli identity, and rejects the view that political cooperation with Arab parties became impossible after the October 7 attack. 1
He also points to the impact of the war on Arab citizens, including the deaths of more than 34 members of the Arab community during the October 7 attack and the kidnapping of six Bedouin citizens from the Negev. He has called on Jews, Arabs, Muslims, Christians, and Druze to support the partnership. 1
The reported polling leaves the election without an obvious governing majority. If the figures cited hold, Arab parties could become central to coalition negotiations, either by supplying seats to an opposition-led government or by influencing whether right-wing parties can reach the governing threshold. 1
The article therefore portrays Arab turnout, the distribution of votes among Arab parties, and cross-community alliances such as the Segalovitz-Ra’am candidacy as key factors in determining the next Israeli government. 1*
Examine the Catholic Church’s teachings on political participation of minorities
The Catholic Church teaches that minorities must not be excluded from political life. Their participation follows from the equal dignity of every person, the common good, freedom from discrimination, and the State’s duty to protect legitimate cultural and religious differences. At the same time, minority rights are exercised within a shared civic order and include duties toward the common good.
Catholic teaching begins with the equal dignity of every human person, regardless of ethnic, racial, cultural, national, or religious origin. Because no group is superior to another, political institutions must reject discrimination and protect the rights of all citizens.
This does not mean that minorities must abandon their identity in order to belong to the nation. The Church recognizes a minority’s right to exist and to preserve its language, culture, traditions, and religious life. The State therefore has a moral duty to make room for minority identity and self-expression.
The principle applies broadly: minorities may be ethnic, linguistic, cultural, religious, or national. Catholic social teaching is concerned not merely with protecting individuals from personal prejudice but also with preventing political structures that systematically silence or exclude communities.
The Church explicitly regards minority participation in public life as a sign of a morally mature society. All citizens should be free to share in national life in a climate of justice and peace.
Participation includes more than the right to vote. It can involve:
Catholic teaching on democratic participation is grounded in respect for the human person. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith states that protecting personal rights is necessary for citizens, individually and collectively, to take an active role in public life and administration.
Thus, a minority should not be treated merely as a population to be governed. Its members are citizens and moral subjects capable of contributing to the formation of the political community.
Religious minorities possess the right to profess and practice their faith. The Church identifies religious freedom, freedom of conscience, and the freedom to seek and follow truth as fundamental human realities. Restricting these freedoms can produce serious social conflict.
Political participation therefore cannot be conditioned on religious conformity. A State may not exclude citizens from public life simply because they belong to a minority religion or hold different religious convictions. Nor should religious minorities be forced to suppress their beliefs when participating in public debate, provided that political action respects justice and the rights of others.
The same principle protects Catholics when they participate in pluralistic societies. The Church teaches that believers and religious bodies have the right to speak and participate in cultural, political, and economic life without government discrimination or interference.
Catholic teaching distinguishes genuine integration from forced assimilation. Integration means participation in a common political society while preserving legitimate cultural and religious differences. The State must defend those differences and enable them to contribute to the common good.
This balance avoids two opposite errors:
The Church supports unity based on solidarity and justice, not uniformity imposed by the majority.
Catholic social doctrine affirms that minorities have precise rights and duties. Their rights include existence, cultural and linguistic preservation, and religious worship. In some situations, minorities may seek greater autonomy or even independence, but the Church identifies dialogue and negotiation—not terrorism—as the proper means of pursuing such claims.
Minorities also have responsibilities. They are called to work for the common good of the State in which they live and to respect the freedom and dignity of their own members. This includes respecting members who freely choose to adopt aspects of the majority culture.
Consequently, minority rights do not justify:
The Church rejects both majority domination and minority nationalism when either denies the equal dignity of other persons.
Catholic participation in politics is not reserved to members of the majority. Lay Catholics have a responsibility to bring Christian moral principles into public life and to work for a just ordering of society. This can include running for office, working within political parties, contacting elected officials, and joining advocacy or community organizations.
The purpose of this participation is not simply to advance Catholic interests. Catholics are called to seek the common good of the whole society, including non-Catholics and those with no religion. The common good must therefore include the protection and flourishing of minorities.
Catholic political engagement must also respect objective moral truth. Democracy is valuable because it allows citizens to participate in political decisions, but it is not morally self-sufficient: democratic institutions must respect the human person and fundamental rights.
Applied to public policy, these principles support:
They do not require every minority to receive a fixed number of political offices or guarantee that every minority proposal will prevail. The supplied texts establish a right to participation and equal civic dignity, but they do not prescribe one particular electoral system, quota arrangement, or constitutional model.
In summary, Catholic teaching holds that a politically mature society gives minorities a genuine voice in public life, protects their legitimate identity, and includes them in the common good. Minorities, in turn, must pursue their rights peacefully, respect the dignity and freedom of their members, and contribute to the welfare of the whole political community.