Starting on October 7 and until today, Arab citizens and Jewish citizens alike have been victims of Hamas and Hezbollah terrorism and have longed to see their loved ones returned from Gaza. Yet in the months since the war broke out, Arab citizens of Israel speaking out against the war have faced police violence and restrictions on their free speech.
“Any peaceful and legal protest against what is happening in Gaza encounters police violence and arrests,” Suhad Bishara of Adalah, the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, told Davar.
During the first five weeks of the war, Adalah handled 251 cases involving arrests, interrogations, or warnings for Arab citizens—121 for alleged incitement on social media and 31 for participating in protests.“It’s all contrary to regulations, but the system doesn’t genuinely care beyond empty statements,” Bishara said of the arrests. “Even legal counsel and prosecution show no accountability. The police investigate without state attorney approval, and sometimes the attorney gives approval when there shouldn’t be any investigation at all, thus broadening the criminal scope in matters of free expression.”
The worsening situation for Arab citizens is reflected not only in law enforcement actions and police policies but also in legislation, which is often interpreted in ways that could lead to a slippery slope. Over the past year, the Knesset debated a bill allowing teachers who post statements “inciting terror” to be dismissed, proposed expanding the grounds for detaining minors, and even recently passed a law allowing relatives of terrorists to be deported.
“The recent legislative moves are not surprising,” Bishara said. “Every crisis is exploited to pass problematic legislation that ostensibly violates human rights, supports racism and Jewish supremacy, and denies civil equality. Now, it’s even more intense. These proposals criminalize expression even further.”
Even as the Israeli government claims to be cracking down on support for terrorism on social media, platforms are filled with “incitement to violence and terrorism” against Arabs, Bishara said. “The system contributes to this, whether actively or by neglecting to address it.”
On proposed amendments to the Israeli Counterterrorism Law, Bishara said, “The law was overly broad and problematic even before October 7, and now they’re trying to expand it even further.” “I recognize the emergency situation, but there’s a difference between responding to it and exploiting it to expand the machinery of oppression under the guise of fighting incendiary discourse,” she continued.
She said that the same policies that have cracked down on Arab dissent are also in place at the protests for the release of the hostages in Tel Aviv. “It manifests in police violence and false arrests, though these are different spaces,” she said. “Here, there are legislative amendments aimed at solidifying the suppression of freedom of expression for the Arab population. This becomes a matter of law enforcement. It’s a matter of years, not a temporary government policy. The laws will remain even after the government changes.”
Much of the change in policy is a result of the ideology of National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, the far-right politician who has been criticized for extremist statements condoning violence and has been convicted for crimes including incitement to racism and support for a terrorist organization. Since taking office Ben-Gvir has expanded his office's powers to strengthen the fight against crime and terrorism, including by moving the National Unit for Enforcing Planning and Construction Laws into his ministry.
“The National Security Ministry is appropriating numerous powers, such as the National Unit for Enforcing Planning and Construction Laws,” Bishara said. “Framing these powers as a fight against crime is part of the incitement machinery. Meanwhile, there are no results in the fight against crime, but there’s an increase in home demolitions and restriction of freedom of expression.”
Bishara described these trends as part of an attempt to shape the state’s relationship with Arab citizens in a more authoritarian manner. “This is characteristic of oppressive regimes,” she said. “In many ways, it’s a return to military governance through legal measures.”
So far, Israel’s judicial system has failed to put an end to these policies. “This government has a majority in the Knesset and the legislative process is fully harnessed to government policy,” Bishara explained. “The struggle in the Knesset is important but has not been very effective so far. Public struggle is essential; it highlights the issue and is important for trying to prevent further legislation. International advocacy cannot be abandoned.”
Local and regional partnerships between Arabs and Jews have been a source of some hope for Bishara. “However, the question of partnership is also tied to vision—where there can be a common vision for the day after, a vision that addresses the civil status of Arabs and the rights of the Palestinian people,” she noted. “This often hinders the formation of broad and long-term partnerships. There needs to be a shared, agreed-upon vision. The absence of a vision stifles the potential for dialogue and mutual struggle.”
This article was translated from Hebrew by Ronen Cohen.
