Truth and Falsehood About the Ra’am Party
The emerging campaign claims that the Islamist Ra’am party is a legitimate partner for coalition membership and government participation. From there, the falsehoods begin.
The campaign to “legitimize” the Ra’am party as a valid partner in a governing coalition—and even as an essential partner on which the government depends—has been running vigorously in Haaretz for quite some time, and has expanded into a broader effort to legitimize all Arab parties. That, however, is not the main point of interest.
What is more noteworthy is how this narrative has spilled over into what the public perceives as Israel’s mainstream media.
Last Friday, Yedioth Ahronoth published Nahum Barnea’s regular column, in which he too appeared to join this campaign. He wrote:
“Pay attention to what I said,” Eisenkot replied. “I said a Zionist and statesmanlike government. ‘Statesmanlike’ includes the Arabs as well as the ultra-Orthodox. Anyone who joins must meet three conditions: Israel as a Jewish and democratic state; the values of the Declaration of Independence; and a duty of service, military or civilian.”
Perhaps I am mistaken, but I assume Mansour Abbas can meet these conditions.
Well, Barnea is not “perhaps mistaken”—he is simply mistaken. And not only mistaken, but also misleading—likely knowingly, since the facts are well known.
At the root of this claim lies a statement made by Mansour Abbas in 2022, according to which Israel as a Jewish state is an existing fact. Yet even that statement—clearly not made out of Zionist conviction but rather as a pragmatic acknowledgment of reality—was firmly rejected by all Ra’am Knesset members. It ultimately remained an isolated remark by Abbas and has since faded away.
In its place, it is argued, stands a clear connection that has been demonstrated between Ra’am and various associations linked to Hamas, effectively portraying the party as a funder of a terrorist organization and even its representative in the Knesset. According to this account, Ra’am’s platform includes a full commitment to the right of return for all descendants of the 1948 refugees—interpreted here as implying the end of Israel—the release of all prisoners, including those convicted of the most severe crimes, changes to state symbols, repeal of what is described as the “racist Law of Return,” and more.
Eisenkot requires Ra’am to meet a condition of “duty of service.” It is suggested that he review Section 12 of Ra’am’s platform, which states succinctly: “Opposition to the conscription of Arabs into the IDF.” (It is further noted that the platform does not propose any alternative form of national service for Arab youth.)
To this, the argument adds claims of ongoing ties with Hamas, as well as repeated visits by Abbas and other Ra’am representatives to convicted prisoners and their families, accompanied by expressions of support.
When Abbas was asked in a radio interview whether he supports the dismantling of Hamas, he chose to end the call rather than answer.
How, then, do all these elements align with “acceptance of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state; the values of the Declaration of Independence; and a duty of service, military or civilian,” as required by Eisenkot?
And on what basis does Nahum Barnea assume that Abbas and Ra’am can meet these conditions?
According to this argument, they do not align—and Barnea’s assumption lacks any factual basis. The claim is that the broader objective is to acclimate the public to the idea that Ra’am is a legitimate political actor, despite being portrayed here as representing opposing interests within the Knesset. If doing so requires misleading the public, then so be it—the inaccuracies will appear, and as elections approach, they will only increase.