Negotiations to form Israel’s next government have placed the head of the United Arab List (Ra’am), Mansour Abbas, before a new political test. Prime Minister-designate Gadi Eisenkot has made participation in his coalition conditional on classifying the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) as a terrorist organization and recognizing Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.
اضافة اعلان
The controversy surrounding Abbas’s statements has raised a broader question: Does the change camp want Arab lawmakers’ votes merely to remove outgoing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, or is it willing to accept their participation in decision-making? Contacts between Netanyahu associates and Abbas, despite Netanyahu’s public campaign against him, have further complicated the equation.
Political correspondent Moran Azulay of Yedioth Ahronoth revealed talks between Abbas and figures from Eisenkot’s party and the Democrats. Citing informed sources, she reported that Abbas had expressed preliminary agreement to classify Hamas as a “terrorist organization” in exchange for a “genuine partnership” in government, without making any direct public announcement to that effect.
When asked about the matter during a meeting of his parliamentary bloc, Abbas replied: “Our answer will be given during the government-formation negotiations.” Yair Golan, leader of the Democrats, told the newspaper that the required recognition could be included in an agreement. Meanwhile, Avigdor Lieberman, head of Yisrael Beiteinu, reiterated his opposition to a minority government dependent on Ra’am or the Joint List.
Eisenkot’s four conditions for any coalition partner include recognizing Israel as a Jewish, democratic, liberal and equal state; committing to the values of the Declaration of Independence; requiring citizens to undertake military, national or civilian service; and classifying Hamas as a terrorist organization while ending its military power and rule in Gaza.
These conditions explain Eisenkot’s caution about bringing Abbas into the coalition. Accepting parliamentary support from the United Arab List would help remove Netanyahu, but granting it a ministerial portfolio would force coalition partners to bear the political consequences of such an arrangement before their constituencies.
The Limits of the Classification
The test became public during consultations held by Israeli President Isaac Herzog. Journalists Amir Ettinger and Shiloh Fried reported in Yedioth Ahronoth on that day that Eyal Shviki, director-general of the President’s Office, asked Abbas why he refrained from describing Hamas as a terrorist organization.
Abbas reportedly replied: “Leave me some room to protect myself and my family,” explaining that the matter concerned self-preservation and rejecting the continued subjecting of his party to loyalty tests.
Shahar Kleiman, Arab affairs correspondent for Israel Hayom, reported that Abbas said during a television interview that the United Arab List combines “our Israeli citizenship and our Palestinian nationality,” and supports a two-state solution, as well as the disarmament of Hamas and armed organizations.
The test was repeated with Ra’am Knesset member Yasser Hujeirat, who denied, in a clarification carried by media reports, having described Hamas as a “charitable organization.” He condemned what he called the killing of civilians and kidnappings. The incident revealed that the dispute extends beyond government positions to the language used in political discourse.
The Jewish Identity of the State
The second controversy dates back to Abbas’s declaration at a conference organized by Globes newspaper in 2021 that Israel was established as a Jewish state and would remain so.
However, Arab affairs correspondent Einav Halabi reported in Yedioth Ahronoth on August 26, 2026, that Abbas had clarified that “the Jewish nature of the state is an existing reality imposed upon us.” He said that his practical acceptance of this reality did not erase the Nakba or the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination.
Political analyst Amit Segal, speaking on Channel 12 on the same date, reported Abbas’s confirmation that recognizing the reality of Israel was different from adopting the Zionist narrative of the state’s establishment.
In an interview conducted in September by journalist Dana Weiss with Abbas and retired Israeli police major general Yoav Segalovitz, Abbas explained that his goal was to achieve full equality for Arab citizens. Segalovitz, who joined the Ra’am list in second place, said he could describe Hamas as a terrorist organization while maintaining his political partnership with Abbas, despite their differences over security and national issues.
The Abbas-Segalovitz model has become a test for Eisenkot, raising the following question: Will he allow political differences within his government, or will he demand that his Arab partner adopt a national position identical to that of the Jewish majority?
A Test for Both Sides
Journalist and political analyst Raviv Drucker explained Abbas’s reservations in an article published by Haaretz on November 9, citing concerns for his personal safety, differing perceptions of Hamas within Palestinian and Israeli societies, and the accumulation of repeated loyalty tests.
Drucker recalled the experience of the government led by Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid, noting that then-Defense Minister Benny Gantz had stressed that Ra’am’s participation in the coalition did not prevent the Israeli army from carrying out its operations.
Meanwhile, Middle East affairs analyst Zvi Bar’el wrote in Haaretz that the real test concerns whether Israeli society is prepared to accept Arabs as partners in governing the country, rather than relying on their votes simply to bring down governments.
From an academic perspective, Dr. Michael Milshtein, senior researcher at the Moshe Dayan Center at Tel Aviv University, warned in an article titled “The Abbas Test,” published by Yedioth Ahronoth on May 10, 2026, that excluding approximately one-fifth of the population from decision-making would deepen internal divisions and threaten the stability of Israeli society.
Netanyahu’s Contradiction
Arab affairs correspondent Mohammed Majadla reported on Channel 12 that Natan Eshel, Netanyahu’s former chief of staff and one of his close associates, had contacted Abbas before and after the elections to gauge his position on supporting Eisenkot. The Likud denied that the contacts had taken place at Netanyahu’s direction.
In an interview with Abbas conducted by radio hosts Gideon Oko and Amichai Atali on 103 FM and published by Maariv on November 11, Abbas confirmed that Eshel had contacted him. He said Netanyahu’s rhetoric had put his safety and that of his family at risk.
Meanwhile, Yisrael Beiteinu leader Avigdor Lieberman continues to reject a minority government dependent on the United Arab List or the Joint List, despite ongoing efforts by the Democrats to bring Abbas closer to the coalition.
The classification of Hamas has therefore become one obstacle among several disputes, including the conscription of ultra-Orthodox Jews, the identity of the state, and Arab participation in government. Overcoming Eisenkot’s condition alone would not be enough to guarantee the formation of a government.
A Dual Test
Israeli researcher Yohai Enspacher addressed the controversy surrounding Abbas’s demand to classify Hamas as a terrorist organization from a different perspective in an article published by Makor Rishon on November 10.
He argued that turning the statement into a negotiating condition could give Abbas political leverage to secure concessions. However, the practical test would be his position on the government’s security and military decisions if another confrontation occurred.
This argument reflects a tendency within the Israeli right to assess Arab political partnership through practical positions rather than political declarations alone. However, it also raises questions about the extent to which Arab parties should be expected to adopt security policies that do not necessarily align with the views of their voters.
In contrast, Yair Golan, leader of the Democrats, said during a meeting of his parliamentary bloc that he did not consider classifying Hamas an obstacle to reaching an understanding with Abbas. He expressed confidence that the required wording could be agreed upon during negotiations.
Three positions have consequently emerged within the anti-Netanyahu camp: one that insists on Eisenkot’s conditions, another that advocates political flexibility to facilitate Abbas’s participation, and a third, represented by Lieberman, that rejects relying on Arab parties to form a government.
These differences make the test a double one. Abbas faces demands concerning his political identity and position on Hamas, while Eisenkot must demonstrate his ability to reconcile the positions of potential coalition partners without dismantling the alliance before it is even formed.
Abbas faces several possible scenarios: joining the coalition after agreeing on an acceptable political formulation, providing parliamentary support from outside the government, or remaining in opposition if negotiations fail.
The first option would give the United Arab List direct influence over issues such as budgets, planning, construction and crime prevention. However, it would also carry political risks related to the party’s position on Israeli military operations and the Palestinian cause.
External support, meanwhile, would allow Abbas to help Eisenkot form a government without assuming direct ministerial responsibility. However, the government would remain vulnerable to disagreements during votes on the budget and sensitive legislation.
Ultimately, Mansour Abbas has shown conditional willingness to discuss classifying Hamas as a terrorist organization, but has not yet explicitly accepted the wording demanded by Eisenkot.
At the same time, the controversy has exposed the limits of the change camp’s willingness to include Arabs in government, despite its need for their votes. The test therefore goes beyond Abbas’s position to encompass Eisenkot’s ability to establish a coalition that recognizes political pluralism while maintaining unity on security and national issues.
Source: news agencies and Israeli media outlets
