In the October 27 Israeli elections, 38 parties ran for office. Of these, only two supported peace, equality and an end to the occupation of Palestinian territories. Both were “Arab parties” – made up of Palestinian citizens of Israel.

These two parties earned a historic result, securing 19 seats in the Knesset, after some 80 percent of Palestinian citizens cast a vote.

This unprecedented turnout contributed to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s failure to secure a majority. His bloc won 53 seats, while the Jewish-led opposition won 48.

The electoral mobilisation of Palestinians was immediately spun as a threat and Palestinian communities now face intensified incitement by members of Netanyahu’s camp. The pro-Netanyahu camp has alleged that the election was “stolen” and is now calling for restrictions on the “Arab vote”.

Thus, Palestinian electoral success exposed an uncomfortable question for Israeli politics: what happens when citizens who are informally isolated on the political scene but whose vote is formally equal become powerful enough to determine who governs?

Palestinian citizens face a fundamental question: Can they truly determine the political outcome and if they can, does that make them equal citizens?

Formal inclusion, informal exclusion Palestinian citizens of Israel have long faced a dilemma over voting. If they do not mobilise to vote, the risk is that the Jewish right would come to power is high. If they do vote, there is no guarantee that their participation would translate into policies that protect or benefit their communities.

In 1999, Arab turnout reached approximately 75 percent in the elections and Palestinian citizens overwhelmingly supported Ehud Barak of the Labour Party against Netanyahu. A year later, after Ariel Sharon’s visit to Al-Aqsa compound and the outbreak of the second Intifada, Israeli police killed 13 Palestinian citizens. Outrage and disillusionment contributed to an Arab boycott of the 2001 election, when turnout fell to about 19 percent. Sharon won.

Today, Palestinian electoral participation still retains its sway. Higher turnout among Palestinians means fewer seats for two main blocs – the pro- and anti-Netanyahu camps – which could tip the balance in the Knesset. This is what happened on October 27 .

But this potentially powerful position of the Palestinian parties has been diminished by the refusal of Jewish-led parties to work with them on government formation.

The logic of this exclusion was made clear in April 2021, when far-right politician Bezalel Smotrich rejected Netanyahu’s attempt to establish a government supported by one of the Palestinian parties, Ra’am. Smotrich argued that doing so would encourage greater Palestinian turnout which would allow the Palestinian community to enable the return of the left to power in Israel. Accepting Palestinian parties would therefore challenge the Jewish right’s political dominance.

Ra’am eventually joined the short-lived coalition government formed by Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid, without making any national demands, but its participation came at the cost of significant concessions on national issues. For the first time, Palestinian political leaders recognised Israel as a Jewish state and were even willing to set aside the national question in favour of addressing civil and socioeconomic issues.

Despite these concessions, the Bennett–Lapid government ultimately collapsed following the resignation of two coalition members who opposed sitting in a government alongside Palestinian representatives.

Netanyahu then realised that to prevent the formation of any future government of change, he needed to delegitimise the Palestinian parties and limit their political representation.

Following October 7, 2023, Palestinian citizens experienced a sharp contraction of political space. Students faced disciplinary proceedings over social-media posts; employees lost jobs; antiwar speech prompted police investigations and arrests.

The electoral process itself reflected this climate. Israel’s Central Elections Committee voted to disqualify both Palestinian electoral lists, along with lawmaker Ofer Cassif and Balad chairman Sami Abu Shehadeh. The Supreme Court eventually reversed the bans on the lists.

Meanwhile, attacking Palestinians, including Palestinian citizens of Israel, became a political staple. Ahead of this election, media outlet Arabic Post conducted an analysis of more than 10,000 election-related social-media items. It reported that 40 percent of posts by candidates from Netanyahu’s camp concerned Arabs or Palestinians, and that 94 percent of those were hostile.

More troubling were the police raids on the homes of Ra’am activists in the Negev, following suspicions of electoral bribery which led to the arrest of three men.

Police acknowledged searches without warrants and later reports questioned the strength of the evidence. All three men were released. But the ripple effect of those allegations helped shape a narrative of suspicion against the Palestinian community.

Attacks on the Palestinian vote In this election, after years of repression and incitement, Palestinian citizens did not retreat. They organised, voted in unprecedented numbers and achieved a remarkable result. They took a gamble by taking their citizenship seriously and by asserting their right to full political equality and a meaningful say in shaping the country’s future.

However, the parties they voted for face isolation unless they fulfil the conditions set by the Jewish-led opposition: namely, recognising Israel as exclusively Jewish, labelling Hamas a “terrorist” organisation and accepting compulsory military or national service, from which Palestinian citizens are now exempt.

In other words, Palestinians can access the political power they should have only if they fully capitulate on the Palestinian question, embrace Zionism and accept their own status as unequal citizens.

In parallel, the Palestinian community also faces intensified incitement, particularly by the pro-Netanyahu camp. Politicians and public figures are throwing claims of electoral manipulation, insisting “the Arabs stole the election”.

Former Deputy Knesset Speaker Moshe Feiglin went as far as declaring that the Palestinian electoral mobilisation was the “October 7” of Israeli politics. Yair Netanyahu, the prime minister’s son, called Palestinian citizens of Israel “the greatest danger to the survival of the State of Israel—aside from the Iranian nuclear threat”.

Many Palestinian citizens now fear that political success could bring further intimidation, restrictions or violence rather than recognition.

Thus, the high voter turnout among Palestinian citizens has forced Israeli society and its political establishment to confront the inherent contradiction between Israel’s identity as a Jewish state and its claim to be a democracy.

This fundamental dilemma may ultimately be resolved in favour of Jewish political dominance, leading to legislation that further undermines Palestinian civil rights and expands the system of apartheid and Jewish supremacy.

It would not be surprising if a bill were introduced in the next Knesset aimed solely at restricting Palestinians’ voting rights. There are already calls on social media for such a move.

A July survey by Israel Democracy Institute found that only 46 percent of respondents in the right-wing Jewish camp supported Palestinian citizens’ right to vote.

In the current reality, following the genocide in Gaza, there is a growing sense among Jewish Israelis that there are no longer any limits to what they can do, pushing the state to act with virtually no restraint towards Palestinian citizens. If Israeli society does not change direction, its pretence of democracy may soon no longer hold.