Unity in the Time of Genocide: Either One National List or Pluralism and Independence

Author: خالد تيتي

SadaNews - In times of genocide, the question of elections is no longer merely about partisan competition or seat calculations; it transforms into an existential question.

We are faced with an unprecedented political reality: a military machine continues to perpetrate genocide in Gaza, an Israeli society that is entirely shifting towards the extreme fascist right, and a government that derives its legitimacy from delegitimizing our existence here.

In this climate, people feel fear of complete exclusion, of the dismantling of our institutions, and of being turned into a community without political protection. Therefore, unity becomes not a comfortable option that we discuss leisurely, but a condition for political and societal survival.

But what kind of unity do we mean?

Here, the essential differences become clear. True unity can only be established through one national list, carrying a solid political project based on national constants, and restoring the status of an independent political discourse after a courageous and frank review of past mistakes.

Any other formula does not express the demand of the street; rather, it empties it of its meaning and turns it into a partisan maneuver aimed at camouflage.

In the last decade, we have witnessed anomalous cases that have dragged our community into a political and moral impasse. The experience of recommending a candidate from within the Zionist camps and the attempt to integrate into Israeli governments under the guise of "influence" ended in deep public disappointment. People felt that their voices were used to justify policies that do not represent their interests, and that concessions were made in their name without them receiving the bare minimum of political or social security.

Unity does not mean reproducing these experiences, nor does it mean returning to the discourse of recommendation or assignment as if it were an innocuous procedural matter. This path has been tried by the people, and they have tasted its bitterness, and they will not accept it again.

From here, another line emerges in the debate: there are those who propose a "roadmap" that superficially appears to promote unity, but in essence, it is a return to the same old path, with the same claims and the same tools. And there are those who speak of "two compatible lists," as if that could be considered unity, while this proposal is not unity but rather a narrow partisan arrangement that undermines the national voice, provides cover for the integration approach, and brings us back to the game of recommending a camp against another camp within Israeli politics.

In this context, the role of the Democratic National Assembly emerges directly:

First, to convince the unified list to abandon its approach based on technical formulas and the option of "two compatible lists," and to return to the national path that protects our community from the dangers of integration.

Second, to persuade the front to retreat from the recommendation path and close that chapter permanently, because any "roadmap" that brings us back to this game will only reproduce failure.

In this sense, the assembly does not merely reject distorted formulas but consistently works to convince its political partners of the necessity to correct the path. This is not a luxury but a national duty, as failure in this task will impose heavy costs on our community in the coming years.

However, it is important to clarify that pluralism in itself is not a sin. If unity is rendered impossible due to some insisting on distorted formulas or partisan maneuvers, having more than one list is not the end of the world. On the contrary, in such a case, pluralism becomes a means of maintaining the independence of political lines and protecting the clarity of the national position, rather than dissolving in a false unity that loses our project its meaning.

Pluralism in this case is not a futile division but a way to ensure that there remains a solid national current that preserves the direction and prevents complete entanglement in the illusion of integration.

The choice is therefore clear: either one national list with solid political content and established constants that restores the status of the national discourse and gathers people around a clear project, or partisan pluralism that maintains the independence of the currents and prevents the popular demand from being usurped in the name of a formal unity.

Anything else is not unity but a disruption of the people's will and a circumvention of the street.

Unity in times of genocide is not a courtesy between parties nor a formal understanding paper; it is an existential shield for an entire community. Either it is sincere with a comprehensive national project, or it is not.