A Brief Stand at "We Stand Together"

There is escalating tension between the leaderships of struggles in the Arab community and the "We Stand Together" movement regarding the nature of partnership and participation in these struggles, including the Tel Aviv demonstration and the car rally today. This tension was clearly evident in an argument between Mansour Dahamshe of the "Front" and activists from the "We Stand Together" movement. This altercation was preceded by similar remarks on social networks indicating a tension that could and must be resolved. To achieve that, we need to understand the source of this tension. We will attempt to clarify this here.

Firstly, the ceiling of the "We Stand Together" movement is set by the Israeli liberalism that hopes to be restored, enriched by leftist Israeli tendencies that do not discuss from the Palestinian narrative but rather from an imagined "reasonable Israeli" perspective that is based on opposing current Israeli policies and the war through the values of "liberal Israeli citizenship." The Palestinians within the movement are engaged in this game from this position. It allows them a space of expression that is not guaranteed for Palestinians who speak from the Palestinian narrative that starts from the Nakba and encompasses all of historical Palestine.

Secondly, the general impression of their performance is that they act based on a wager on the remnants of privileges for the liberal forces, which enjoy support from sources in the Hebrew media and the political map, not to mention support from donors in Jewish communities or entities that typically fund Jewish-Arab activities. Meanwhile, our parties lack any legitimacy, support, or 'privilege' of this kind. This gives the "We Stand Together" movement an advantage over the Arab political frameworks in implementing struggles and activities, thanks to greater resources and the liberal discourse that protects them. This very advantage has led the movement to err in its patronizing attitude or "teaching the Arabs" how to conduct their struggles. Their discourse carries a sense of condescension and some preserved superiority towards white colonial societies. Hence, they do not see themselves obligated to any arrangements or decisions made by the authorized Arab leaderships in the framework of confronting crime or implementing struggles or organizing the participation of forces involved in this or that activity — flags, party displays, and identity visuals. They are not part of these bodies and are not represented in them.

Thirdly, the nomination of Rula Dawood, one of the leaders of the "We Stand Together" movement, for the presidency of the Follow-up Committee two months ago was considered by many in our community as an inappropriate act at the very least and a disregard for our community, its identity, struggles, and its supreme body, at worst. As for embarking on this experience in the context of women's representation, it did not alter the previously mentioned sentiment, even if people graciously did not express it publicly as much as they did in private circles and platforms. In other words, it was interpreted that the "We Stand Together" movement overstepped a bit when it assumed that this was about a position, rather than about the identity of the community, its narrative, and its representation during the genocide.

Fourthly, the movement survives in our community through criticism of the parties and leaderships and their performance in combating crime and other matters. This criticism is often justified. The "We Stand Together" movement believes that it has the right to use this criticism, especially among young people, to expand its base, discourse, and audience, particularly when coupled with pressing issues like crime. This becomes even more urgent if the movement participates in elections, as has been published. This drives it to intensify its presence in all struggles related to crime and the Arab community more generally, sometimes with an excessive display of presence.

It is customary for all political forces in our community to coordinate and partner with Israeli liberal forces for specific purposes. This has occurred in the Knesset, in public life, universities, and the public space over decades. There is no harm in cooperating with this movement as well, with clarification of the boundaries, possibilities, and appropriateness within a dialogue with its leadership. Given that the "We Stand Together" movement emerged from the core idea of Arab-Jewish partnership and from the midst of experience, we can assume that its leadership has sufficient experience and conclusions from the entire previous era of these partnerships. From personal knowledge of many activists in the "partnership," I can confirm that they have drawn conclusions that necessitate correcting this and establishing it on new, fairer foundations for the Arab partners and the Arab community in general, especially after the genocide. The leaderships of our parties, particularly the new Follow-up Committee chair, Dr. Jamal Zahalka, have also reached conclusions from experiences regarding political action and representation. This leaves room for understanding with the "We Stand Together" movement and other movements, associations, and initiatives in the field. In a sense, these movements should reflect the Arab parties and leaderships and challenge the development of fieldwork and struggle based on their headquarters and bodies. If I were in the "Front," I would not have sent Mansour Dahamshe to say what he said. We need a strategic mind, not party-based anxieties about a movement that was born yesterday.

When fascism encroaches - history teaches us - a broad front must be built to confront it. This is the need of the hour. No one has the luxury to waste time and energy on a tension that can be resolved in a single negotiation round, provided there is a will for it.