“Expanding Arab-Jewish Partnership is the Need of the Day”

This summer, Ayman Odeh, a Member of the Knesset for the Israeli socialist party Hadash, went through a difficult political and personal experience: from an attempt to impeach him from the Knesset, through direct incitement from within the assembly, and a physical attack on the street. In the Knesset committee discussions regarding his impeachment, direct and severe statements were made, such as, “In any other country you’d be facing a firing squad.” On his way to a protest in Nes Ziona, a crowd blocked his car and shattered his window while chanting “Death to the Arabs.” 

The Rosa Luxemburg Foundation’s Dunia Abbas interviewed Ayman Odeh in an attempt to understand how he interprets the events, what the experience has revealed about the political reality in Israel, and what he thinks Palestinian society has to look forward to in the near future.

Ayman Odeh, the attempt to impeach you had to do with a tweet you posted during the ceasefire and hostage release deal, in which you said, “I am glad the hostages and prisoners are being released,” as well as a speech you gave during a protest in Haifa, where you said, “Gaza has won and will continue to win.” These statements were used to implicate you with support for terrorism. How do you respond to these allegations? Do you feel that your words were twisted or taken out of context?

I stand confidently behind every word I said. “I am glad the hostages and prisoners are being released. From this point on, both peoples must be released from the burden of occupation, for all of us were born free.”

When it comes to the hostages and the prisoners: it’s obvious that the governing institution of Israel does not acknowledge the existence of a single Palestinian freedom fighter, simply because it does not acknowledge the existence of the occupation, or the existence of the Palestinian people. Therefore, it cannot see Palestinians as people fighting for their freedom. 

Of course, I rejoiced in the release of the hostages — they are innocent civilians with families, mothers waiting for them. I was moved to see an Israeli mother embracing her returning son, just as I was moved to see a Palestinian mother embracing her returning son. 

When it comes to freedom of speech, I’ve been unequivocal: Backing down would mean hurting my colleagues’ right to express their views and opening the door to a fascistic oppression of free speech.

When I said “both peoples must be released from the burden of occupation,” I meant it. As long as this system of oppression and occupation continues to exist, no one can truly be free. Occupation is like a prison — both prisoners and prison guards must be freed by dismantling the prison. As writer and poet Muhammad al-Maghut wrote, “The difference between the prison guard and the prisoner is that the prison guard dreams of prison while the prisoner dreams of freedom.”

Our goal is to dismantle this prison and set both sides free. In the reality of wartime, during which tens of thousands of my people were killed, I repeat that we were all born free. Could any statement be more universal or humanistic? How could anyone give up even on an inch of such a principle? There’s no way. 

As to what I said at the protest in Haifa, when I said “Gaza will win” — I want Gaza to win, just as I want Haifa to win, the West Bank to win, East Jerusalem to win, and Tel Aviv to win. By the same token, I want both peoples to defeat the occupation, and I want a Palestinian State with Jerusalem as its capital alongside the State of Israel, so that we can live in true peace. Only a racist views Gaza as a monolith. I, on the other hand, am on the side of Gaza. I’m on the side of the children of Gaza, who are dying of hunger as we speak. I’m on the side of the women and the families there. I want Gaza to beat this criminal occupation — a victory that is part of a human struggle for a just peace. 

When the vote failed, you said, “The fascist attempt against me has failed. This time, fascism didn’t win, and we won’t let it win.” Do you see this as a personal victory or as a symbolic battle for Arab political representation and Palestinian presence within Israel? 

From the very first moment, I have been clear that the purpose of this attempt was not merely to target me personally, but also to target freedom of speech, as well as the freedom to identify with the Palestinian people. The Israeli establishment, from 1948 to this day, has tried to create an image of the “Israeli-Arab” — an image detached from the struggle of the Palestinian people, but at the same time one that cannot be a full Israeli civilian in a country that defines itself as the “Jewish State.” The “Israeli-Arab” is a contorted figure that the establishment has been enforcing and preserving. That’s why one of the things that make the establishment most disgruntled is the very act of speaking openly and honestly about the Palestinian people. 

We’ve never heard an Israeli news anchor asking a Jewish Member of the Knesset, “Why are you preoccupied with the Palestinian question?” That question is reserved for Arab Members of the Knesset. We’re expected to limit ourselves to municipal topics: roads, infrastructure, drilling, and sewage. The Jewish MKs, on the other hand, can speak freely about Gaza and the West Bank. We can’t even talk about the West Bank — even though the budgetary funds we deserve are stolen and transferred to the settlements, the military, and security mechanisms. This gap reveals the truth: this struggle is not against a single person, but against an entire society and its political and national identity. 

When it comes to freedom of speech, I’ve been unequivocal: Backing down would mean hurting my colleagues’ right to express their views and opening the door to a fascistic oppression of free speech. Backing down would mean hurting the right of university students, of Arab labourers, of any person in our community, to say their piece with liberty and dignity. 

I explained this over and over again in Knesset assemblies, clarifying that sticking to this position is a defensive act. I am defending accomplishments made in a persistent struggle over decades, for the purpose of expanding the territory of freedom of speech. From the start, this was not personal, but a public battle that affects us all.

If we stick for a moment with the idea that this is a collective struggle, and that your position is intended to protect the entire public, what do you think are the implications of everything that’s happened on Palestinian citizens of Israel? What message do you wish to convey to Arab citizens regarding their political participation following this event and within the current climate? 

My message to my people is clear: The next few months — until the next elections — will be the hardest we’ve known in two years. The right has made some military achievements in the region — in Lebanon, Syria, and Iran — while tens of thousands of Palestinians have been killed and the population in Gaza is starving. But no real geo-strategic accomplishments were made when it comes to the question of Palestine — which is at the heart of its ideology. The war will end, but over seven million Palestinians will continue living between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

The unique thing about Israel has to do mostly with the issue of the occupation, which is the central element feeding the crisis.

The Zionist Left’s major accomplishment of recent decades, the Oslo Accords, is criticized for leading neither to peace nor to security. The right, on the other hand, views 7 October and the war that followed as its historical opportunity to implement its grandest ideological slogans: “If force is insufficient, use more force,” and “Let the IDF win.”

I therefore say to my people: First, we must strengthen internally and socially, deepening our political awareness of what’s ahead. Second, we must build an expansive collaboration with democratic Jewish entities. Expanding Arab-Jewish partnership is the need of the day. The proof is in the pudding: had it not been for this partnership, my impeachment attempt would have succeeded. Third, voting matters. When fascists are in power, all efforts must be focused on toppling the government. Every other cause should be recruited to a single purpose: to prevent this government’s continued rule. Only after we topple it can we continue with our own struggle. The first step must be uprooting fascism.

In spite of internal unrest and attempts to impeach you — and in the midst of an all-out war on the Gaza Strip and escalation in the West Bank — you have remained faithful to your position and your belief and continue to call for expanding Jewish-Arab collaborations in the face of occupation and fascism. How can this collaboration be translated and developed into action? And how do you make the connection between the struggle for democracy within Israel and the struggle to end the occupation?

Let’s return to our tradition and heritage, as well as to human history. A few examples: 

The story of Antarah ibn Shaddad. When his father, who did not acknowledge him and viewed him exclusively as a slave, asked him to fight in a war against an enemy tribe, Antarah replied, “The slave is not good at charging, but rather at milking cows and carrying water jugs.” In other words: those who are not recognized as free men cannot be asked to risk their lives in battle, but only to perform menial tasks. His father argued that this was not the time to discuss liberation, and Antarah persisted in his refusal. Later, his father returned and promised him liberation in return for participation in battle. Only then did Antarah agree.

During the American Civil War, Abraham Lincoln asked for Frederick Douglass’s support. Douglass asked, “What about our freedom?” and Lincoln told him to wait for the war to end before discussing that. Douglass insisted that Black people wanted their freedom right away, and that’s how Lincoln ended up transforming from a racist into the man who abolished slavery, a symbol of liberty. 

The same thing happened with Rabin and Arafat, De Gaulle and Ahmed Ben Bella, Tony Blair and Gerry Adams, De Klerk and Mandela. None of them acted out of pure universalism. Instead, they all made change when they realized the cost-benefit evaluation was working against them. That is the equation that repeats itself throughout history — fake liberalism versus principles. Fake liberals view people of principles as soldiers in its battle against fascism — faceless, identity-less, narrative-less. 

To apply this metaphor to a broader vision: these days I’m often invited to speak in public settings, and whenever I speak, I always say that the root of the judicial overhaul is the occupation. Its promoters are settlers from the West Bank, and their goal is to take over the Supreme Court so that they can annex Area C and steal private Palestinian land. The judicial overhaul is meant to serve the occupation project. That’s why the first step must be deepening public awareness to this truth.

The freedom fighter forces the world to respect him, and only then does the world move. The world did not address Palestinians between 1948 and 1965, just as it did not address the struggle for the rights of African Americans before Mandela and Martin Luther King appeared on the scene.

Second, it’s obvious these days that the majority of the Jewish population is right-leaning, and that the centre and the Left cannot win without us. We’ll deal with this reality the same way Antarah did, the same way Frederick Douglass did, the same way as anyone throughout history who was promised liberty in exchange for support. It’s going to be a constant argument between us and the fake liberals.

At the same time, we remember perfectly well what happened in Germany at the beginning of the twentieth century, when the Social Democratic Party collaborated with the government: It led to the death of Rosa Luxemburg, the shooting of May Day protestors, and the killing of communists. After that, communists refused to cooperate, and the result was the rise of fascism and the worst crime in human history. 

We may come to a point where we must say that stopping fascism is enough. We can return to battling fake liberals later. But we cannot start out by weakening our stance. We must try and make the maximal amount of progress with fake liberals — meaning with the Israeli centre and Left — in order to achieve our goals. That is the art of politics: building on principles and carrying a vision.

How do you read the global response, especially from the Left, regarding the campaign against you and the failed impeachment attempt?

First, there is no doubt that whatever happens in Israel has its own unique character, but it also possesses some global characteristics. Globally, it’s clear there’s a blatant deviation here from the conclusions of World War II. This is embodied in figures such as Trump in America, Bolsonaro in Brazil, Johnson in the UK, Orbán in Hungary, Erdoğan in Turkey, Putin in Russia, Modi in India, and Netanyahu in Israel. This is a group of leaders who made the conscious choice to veer away from the conclusions of World War II, both in terms of democratic conduct, and in terms of respecting legal checks and balances. This is obviously a global trend. 

The unique thing about Israel has to do mostly with the issue of the occupation, which is the central element feeding the crisis. I am not claiming that the occupation is the root of all evil, as the Israeli Left says. There were atrocities before 1967, as well. But there is no doubt that, from its beginning, the occupation became the main lifeline: the main cause of harm to the democratic system, the main obstacle for improving relationships between Jews and Arabs, a strain on the economy, and a negative influence of women’s rights.  

We rely first and foremost on ourselves, because we believe the world does not look fondly on complaints and crying. The freedom fighter forces the world to respect him, and only then does the world move. The world did not address Palestinians between 1948 and 1965, just as it did not address the struggle for the rights of African Americans before Mandela and Martin Luther King appeared on the scene. 

The foundation of all international circles is local struggle and self-respect on the local level. Only then does an international response formulate. That is what we’re seeing now. There’s no doubt that an unprecedented global people’s movement is evolving around the Palestinian cause. It’s important that we nurture international relationships with these movements, which support our existence and our struggle.

Translated by Yardenne Greenspan