Palestinian Citizens' Record Turnout Is a Principled and Pragmatic Rejection of Israel's Genocidal Politics, Unlike Jewish Voters' Stasis
Source: Matan Kaminer. "Only Israel’s Palestinians Vote Against Genocide." October 31, 2026. jacobin.com
The Gist
The author argues that while Israeli Jewish voters stayed locked in the same political camps despite the war in Gaza, Palestinian citizens of Israel turned out in record numbers and mostly backed a party that opposes the war. He says voting made sense because even small differences between governments matter for Palestinians' lives, and that their stance is an inspiring example of steadfastness even though the overall political picture remains bleak.
Conclusion
Israel's Palestinian citizens, by turning out in record numbers and voting for the Joint List and UAL, were the only electoral bloc to meaningfully resist Israel's aggression and genocidal policy; their participation was justified over abstention and offers an example of steadfastness (sumoud) for progressives elsewhere, even though Israel's political outlook remains bleak.
Premises
- Despite a genocide in Gaza, a constitutional crisis, military setbacks and global isolation under Netanyahu, Israeli Jewish voters remained largely unmoved, with near-universal support for regional aggression and a re-sorting into the same pro- and anti-Netanyahu blocs.
- Palestinian citizens, facing unprecedented racist incitement, responded with record turnout, and the Joint List (51%), which rejects the war in Gaza and ethnic cleansing in the West Bank while demanding civic equality, won a majority of their votes, with the UAL taking 37%.
- Both Zionist blocs reject solidarity with Gaza and exclude Palestinian parties; the anti-Netanyahu bloc demands that partners endorse annihilating Hamas, and all Zionist parties backed barring Joint List candidate Sami Abu-Shehadeh over a repudiated article, while genocidal statements by right-wing candidates went unpunished.
- Despite the similarity of the blocs, differences between them are matters of life and death for Palestinians: an Eisenkot-led government might halt, if not reverse, settler-militia ethnic cleansing, and curb Ben-Gvir's abuses and organized crime, so abstention was not a luxury Palestinian citizens could afford.
- High Palestinian turnout weakened the extreme-right parties of Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, kept two other right-wing parties below the threshold, and deprived Netanyahu's coalition of its majority, showing the practical payoff of voting.
- The Joint List struck a balance between principle and pragmatism, combining cross-border Palestinian solidarity with a willingness to help remove Netanyahu, for example by offering a parliamentary safety net, and the electorate endorsed this approach.
Assumptions
- Voting for the Joint List constitutes a vote against genocide, and the Joint List's platform is meaningfully opposed to Israeli policy in Gaza and the West Bank.
- Even small differences between Zionist blocs have real consequences for Palestinian lives, so participation can yield tangible harm reduction.
- Jewish voters' bloc-sorting reflects acceptance of or indifference to aggression, rather than other motivations such as class or culture-war concerns.
- Record turnout and vote share reflect intentional opposition to the war rather than other motives such as crime, local issues or community representation.
- The characterization of Israel's conduct in Gaza as genocide is accepted by the intended audience and is factually warranted.
- Electoral participation and parliamentary leverage are effective tools for Palestinian citizens, despite delegitimization and exclusion from government coalitions.
- The UAL's vote is also an anti-genocide vote, or its voters' choice can be read as consistent with the overall Palestinian turnout narrative.