Azmi Beshara is the best example of an Israeli Arab (or Israeli Palestinian) who is leading his people to nowhere. He also demonstrates that higher education, native intelligence, and affiliation with the Christian community does not assure moderation. Beshara has a PhD in political science, and is among the most articulate of Knesset members.
He is also the most outspoken Knesset member in support of an expansive conception of Palestinian rights. He has traveled to Syria and Lebanon, appeared along with Hassan Nasrallah and Bashar al-Assad, and endorsed, by hint or explicitly, the right of Palestinians and Hezbollah to pursue their claims against Israel with all means, including violence.
Since his first election to the Knesset in 1996 Beshara has been a concern of Israeli security and legal authorities. So far the courts have protected him on the basis of freedom of speech, and the immunity accorded to Knesset members to express themselves with the utmost freedom, even on sensitive issues that provoke widespread public opposition.
Currently Beshara is somewhere, most likely outside of Israel. There is some kind of legal process in the works, but media personnel are kept from disclosing its nature on account of a court order banning publication. Hints and rumors deal with a violation of security provisions that may entail his arrest, or preventing his leaving the country, if he returns to Israel. We have heard that he has sought political refuge in Qatar and has been offered a position as political commentator on the al-Jazeera network. Some say he intends to resign from the Knesset, while others deny that report. He may be in Jordan along with his family, with plans to travel to Europe and India. Jordan may not be entirely happy with its role in the affair, partly to avoid friction with Israel, and partly because Beshara has identified with the Syrian camp in Arab politics. We have also heard that Beshara has served as a double agent, reporting to Israeli authorities what transpires in the region, as well as reporting to Syria and Hezbollah on Israel.
One of the things we argue about is the freedom that should be allowed to Azmi Beshara and other Israeli Arabs. Authorities, and especially the courts, are reluctant to curtail their freedom of speech. Especially sensitive are those who have been elected to the Knesset, and those who claim to be religious leaders. Along with Beshara on the borders between the tolerable and the abominable is Raed Salah, head of the northern branch of Israel's Islamic Movement. In connection with the recent commotion about the repair of an entrance to the Temple Mount/Haram esh-Sharif, Salah said, "it is now the duty of every Arab and Muslim to start an uprising to save Jerusalem and the al-Aqsa Mosque," and that Israel's Jews "want to build their temple while our blood is on their clothes, on their doors, in their food and drinks."
Salah does not enjoy a Knesset member's immunity from prosecution, and he has served time in Israeli prison. Recently a Jerusalem court ordered his release after the police had arrested him for incitement to violence. The court refused the police request to forbid him from entering Jerusalem, but did restrict his public appearances in the city.
Critics argue that the courts have been more tolerant of Arab than Jewish extremists. Meir Kahana was forbidden to campaign for re-election to the Knesset under the law that forbid racist incitement, while Beshara and Salah have been free to express views no less inflammatory.
Currently we do not know where Beshara is, whether he is hiding, seeking refuge from Israeli authorities, inclined to resign from the Knesset, or to continue his struggle. We also do not know the nature of the charges against him, but the order forbidding publication is unlikely to survive the porous nature of Israeli media for much longer.
More important is the problem facing Israel. How much latitude to allow prominent Israeli Arabs who preach violence, or endorse those who do? It is the classic question of how should a democratic society defend itself against those who would use their freedom of expression to encourage violent change in the regime?
The most complete picture of relations between Israeli Arabs and Jews appears in a report by Professor Sammy Smooha, a sociologist and currently Dean of Social Sciences at the University of Haifa. http://caf.org.il/assets/Indexeng.pdf It portrays a complex picture that includes distrust, and contrasting assignments of responsibility between Arabs and Jews. Yet it also shows substantial sentiment among both populations to support a society that is integrated, and committed to a peaceful resolution of disputes. Among its findings is a greater inclination toward comity with Israeli Jews among Arab citizens than among those in positions of leadership.
This is the best indication that Arab leaders, and most prominently Azmi Beshara and Raed Salah, have been trying to lead their people to a place where they have not chosen to go. Those who suffer most from this road to nowhere are those who follow them, and those who endure a shortfall in public services because of them.
Arab leaders who would fight the lost battles of 1948 have not learned the cardinal rules of politics: Get what you can. Cooperation with the dominant parties can achieve benefits for one's voters. Persistent frontal assaults on the regime may serve one's sense of ideological righteousness, but are not likely to increase the food on the table, the quality of education, roads, or health care.