Jews and Arabs: the challenge of trust

Born in 1975 in Haifa, Israel’s largest mixed city, in a Palestinian, Muslim, working-class family, Ayman Odeh began his schooling in a local Christian institution before studying law in Romania in the late 1990s. He joined the Israeli Communist Party, which had merged in 1977 into a broader Jewish-Arab formation, Hadash, of which he became Secretary-General in 2006. After being elected Haifa city councilor at the age of 23, he served continuously as a member of the Knesset from 2015 onward, heading coalitions that brought together several Arab parties. He led them to their greatest success in March 2020 when they won 15 seats in the Knesset. In October of that year, he opposed the normalization agreements between the United Arab Emirates and Israel. He explained to Al Mayadeen, a Lebanese channel considered close to Hezbollah, that the agreement sought to legitimize the occupation in order to build an alliance against Iran – an agreement which, in his view, rested on the mistaken premise that Israel’s overriding problem was Iran rather than the Palestinian question. In May 2023, he announced his intention to retire from political life at the end of his parliamentary term.

E. E.-P.

Emmanuelle Elbaz-Phelps — Ayman Odeh, you are currently working on the creation of a peace movement. What is your project?

Ayman Odeh — I am establishing a popular movement that will initially bring together several tens of thousands of Arabs and Jews, and which is intended to grow very rapidly. The objective is to establish peace between the two peoples in just a few years.

We have just lived through the longest and most painful war imaginable. From the point of view of the right-wing Israeli government, the conditions seemed ripe to “settle the conflict once and for all”: after 7 October, it became possible to undertake things that could not be done in the past. During the first months, 90% of Israel’s Jewish population supported the war, and Trump repeatedly gave his blessing to a transfer of Gaza’s Palestinian population. But now that the war has ended, the facts are clear: between the sea and the Jordan there remain 7.5 million Palestinians and 7.5 million Jews. This reality will not change. Neither people is going to evaporate. We must therefore reach a historic compromise founded on the recognition of the national rights of both peoples.

E. E.-P. — Practically speaking, what are your movement’s missions?

A. O. — We have defined five missions for our first year. First, to revive the peace camp, which in the 1990s numbered hundreds of thousands of people in Israel. Second, to form 400 or 500 groups of Arabs and Jews: doctors for peace, lawyers for peace, accountants for peace, footballers for peace… in every field. Third, we will launch a petition with the aim of reaching one million signatures in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and one million in Israel – eight hundred thousand Jews and two hundred thousand Arabs, in proportion to each group’s weight in Israeli society. The idea is to show both peoples that large segments of their respective societies aspire to peace. We are peoples of 7.5 million each, not 300 million, so a million signatures on each side carries real weight.

Our fourth action concerns Israeli Jewish youth. Unfortunately, 75% are right-wing, and 25% support Ben Gvir and Smotrich. These young people were, are, or will be soldiers, and they are hot-blooded. We will therefore develop targeted projects. We will go into schools, into youth clubs, and we will organize encounters between Arabs and Jews, and between Jews and Palestinians. The fifth and final mission: to ensure that the turnout among Arab citizens of Israel in the next elections reaches at least 75%. This is vital if we are to prevent Netanyahu, Ben Gvir and Smotrich from remaining in power. We will do everything in our power to achieve this.

E. E.-P. — What is the name of your movement?

A. O. — “Emoun, Trust, Fiqah.” One of the major problems affecting both peoples is the lack of trust. If you set aside the supporters of the Meretz party (1), who are already deeply committed to peace, and those of the Religious Zionist party (2), who are vehemently opposed to it, everyone else will tell you: “We may indeed have made mistakes here and there, but overall our people wanted peace and it was always the other side that rejected it.” Israelis will speak to you of the Peel Commission, of the UN partition plan, of Ehud Barak who offered everything, of Ehud Olmert who conceded everything, of Palestinian leaders who fled at the last moment… To which the Palestinians retort: “We received only 22% of the land; on our side, Yasser Arafat signed the Oslo Accords and was elected president with 88% of the vote, while they assassinated Rabin; we approved the Arab Peace Initiative and Israel rejected it; Mahmoud Abbas wants peace but Israelis vote continuously for Netanyahu; they are the occupiers and we the occupied; Israel is a strong state and we are liberation movements…”

Each side claims that it wants peace and that it is the other that refuses. This is why the word trust is fundamental. Hence the importance of a petition that should gather one million signatures on each side, to show everyone that there is indeed a partner in front of them.

E. E.-P. — There are already many groups of Jews and Arabs united for peace in Israel, such as Standing Together. How does your movement differ from theirs?

A. O. — Standing Together are our partners, true allies, and we will coordinate and work together. But unlike us, theirs is a movement for peace, equality, democracy, social justice, and so forth… They are engaged and active in all issues affecting society’s most vulnerable. We focus solely on peace. Moreover, Standing Together is a group with a strong left-wing orientation, somewhere between Hadash and Meretz, whereas we appeal to the center, to all those who support the creation of a state alongside a state. Our spectrum is broader but I certainly want them as partners.

E. E.-P. — What distinguishes your initiative is that you wish to create a movement active not only in Israel, but also in the West Bank and Gaza – in other words, linking the inhabitants of these three places…

A. O. — These are not three places, but two. Gaza and the West Bank constitute a single region: the Palestinian state. And yes, we will work there as well; that is precisely where Arab citizens of Israel can bring the most added value. We are part of the Palestinian people, and we are also citizens of Israel. We can therefore speak both to Palestinians and to Israelis. As someone who lives in Israel, speaks both languages, knows both cultures, was born in the mixed city of Haifa and lives in a building shared with Jewish neighbors, I am well placed to speak to Palestinians who maintain that we cannot live with Jews, and equally to Israelis. We, the Palestinian citizens of Israel, represent 20% of Israeli society. We have a role to play in bringing the peoples together and leading them towards peace.

E. E.-P. — Do you intend to transform this movement into a political party eventually?

A. O. — No, and for a simple reason: our spectrum ranges from the Balad party [a Palestinian nationalist party] to the centre. We seek to bring together as many people as possible who support a state alongside another state, including those of the so-called “moderate” right. Consequently, we cannot be a party standing for election, as there are numerous political disagreements among us. Nor are our motivations for peace the same. Take a centrist voter who wants peace in order to preserve Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, and therefore, by that definition, to ensure a Jewish majority in Israel. Do you realise what that means? It means that each of us [Palestinian citizens of Israel] is seen as inherently problematic. Yet to that same person who demands an end to the occupation to preserve a Jewish majority, I say: “Let us fight together for an end to the occupation and for a state alongside another state.” One does not need the same motivations to share a common objective. Did Mandela have the same motivation as De Klerk? The Algerian FLN as De Gaulle? Gerry Adams as Tony Blair? Or Martin Luther King as Johnson? Of course not. But once an agreement is signed, time passes and one realizes that it works rather well.

E. E.-P. — What is your vision of the Palestinian state?

A. O. — I would prefer a single state in which we could live in equality and democracy. But because I know that within both peoples there is an overwhelming majority in favor of self-determination and national rights, I support the creation of a state alongside a state. It is the only realistic solution.

E. E.-P. — Why do you use the phrase “a state alongside a state” rather than “a two-state solution”?

A. O. — If one uses the term “two-state solution”, one must not forget the requirement of ending the occupation. I want two independent states. The citizens of each state will have to decide what form it takes. As for the current State of Israel, I accept the Jewish people’s right to self-determination, but this must in no way undermine profound equality, both collective and individual, between Arabs and Jews. This is one of my struggles, and I am convinced that the Arab population will never achieve this perfect form of democracy, equality and social justice without an end to the occupation. Occupation is an assault on democracy. As long as the conflict endures, we, the Palestinian citizens of Israel, are considered a security “problem”, a demographic issue. With every war, relations between Jews and Arabs are shaken; we are looked upon with suspicion, as people whose loyalty is questionable. This is why the Palestinian question is absolutely central. The average Israeli does not see what I see. If we fail to reach a compromise, the situation will erupt.

E. E.-P. — What about Jerusalem, the refugees, the borders…?

A. O. — We must not only secure a “peace of the brave”, but also a peace of the generous, in the interests of both states. Our aim is that both peoples be satisfied with what they receive, and that both states thrive. As for the specific issues you raise, I have the privilege of not sitting at the negotiating table. Why should I take positions that risk creating division when my goal is to mobilize as widely as possible?

Nevertheless, I do believe that the broad outlines of peace are contained in the plan reached between the two parties in 2001 and 2008. As for this or that percentage of territory to be exchanged, I am not an expert, but I am sure that those who will have the responsibility of addressing the matter will know perfectly well how to find the right solution. If we truly want peace, we can overcome all obstacles.

E. E.-P. — After the horror of 7 October and two years of atrocious war in Gaza, in what timeframe do you believe your vision of “a state alongside another state” may be realized?

A. O. — Five years. Peoples often surprise us by the speed with which they are able to compromise. But first, let me tell you what the Nakba means to us Palestinians. I am from Haifa. Before the creation of Israel, we were 70,000 Palestinians. After the Nakba, we were only 2,000. Haifa had 35 Arabic newspapers. Only one remains: Al-Ittihad. From 1948 until the early 1950s, Israel bombed 530 villages to prevent refugees from returning. We often say that Allah died in 1948! Ninety per cent of Jews do not understand what the Nakba means to us. And yet, at the time of Oslo, Arabs and Jews in Israel embraced, and my people danced for peace. Do you know how many Arab citizens wept when Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated? Peoples instinctively know how to choose the future over the past, provided they are offered realistic hope.

After the first Intifada came Oslo. After the second Intifada came Olmert, Abu Mazen [Mahmoud Abbas], and the partition of Jerusalem. The Oslo peace brought great joy. The peace pursued by Olmert and Abu Mazen, by contrast, was accompanied by disgust and weariness. So yes, I would prefer peace to be made in joy, but even in bitterness, the important thing is that it be made. The Palestinians struck Israel on 7 October as never before; the Israelis have struck the Palestinians over the past two years as never before. And neither side has managed to change the basic equation, for the simple reason that it cannot change. We owe something to all the victims. Their blood cannot have been shed in vain. Are we so wicked as to let this situation continue and explode in our faces once more?

E. E.-P. — Does the Trump plan provide an adequate framework for long-term work?

A. O. — I do not believe in Trump. I do not believe in his values; indeed, I doubt he has any at all. But I supported the plan on two essential points: stopping the war and freeing the hostages and prisoners. And it mentions a Palestinian state in Article 19, which Netanyahu was forced to accept. Nevertheless, the silence of Ben Gvir and Smotrich is deafening. I explain this by the likelihood that another agreement has been negotiated discreetly, enabling the Israelis to achieve things they failed to accomplish during the war: establishing a Palestinian entity only in Gaza and not in both the West Bank and Gaza, thus further separating the territories; bringing in a massive workforce from the West Bank to rebuild Gaza, thereby diluting the population of the West Bank; sinking the Palestinian Authority; building at breakneck speed in the West Bank, and so on. Consequently, it would be premature to consider the war to be behind us. We must prepare for a different kind of war – not as intense, but fraught with great dangers. We must remain vigilant and oppose these projects. I, Ayman Odeh, even though I do not believe in Trump at all, even though I am convinced that there is a covert project, support the plan.

E. E.-P. — There is constant talk of a “post-Bibi” era. But if that day does not come after the next elections, and if Hamas remains in power in Gaza, how will your vision be realized?

A. O. — Certain things delay peace; others gravely undermine the possibility of achieving it. Once again, there is a truth stronger than all opponents of peace: the fact that between the sea and the Jordan two peoples live side by side, and that neither is going to disappear.

One day – whether now or at some unknown time – these two peoples will obtain what is due to them: the right to self-determination. But it is true that Netanyahu’s return to power would be catastrophic. If the prospect of a Palestinian state recedes once again, there is a real risk that the middle class, both Israeli and Palestinian, will leave the region. Those who remain on both sides will be the poor and the fanatics. And street warfare will become inevitable.

E. E.-P. — Is it not possible to advance the project of a Palestinian state despite him?

A. O. — The Israeli left tends to wait for an external force to bring about change. It is a way of escaping reality. The international community has never ceased exerting pressure; American leaders have even intervened directly, like Baker in 1992 with Shamir over the settlements, like Clinton, who contributed to Bibi’s failure to remain in power in 1999, like George W. Bush… And none of it has yielded any results. Instead of hoping for a solution to come from above, we must begin from the bottom and move upward. Our group, this Jewish–Arab movement we are building, addresses the peoples first, and tries to convince them to move towards peace. Peace will be solid only if both peoples understand that it is up to us to bring it about.

As for Netanyahu, I believe he will lose the next elections. We will then almost certainly have a “mishmash government”, ranging from Naftali Bennett to the Democrats, which will not advance peace. It will last a year, maybe a year and a half, but certainly not four years. Personally, I will not be a candidate. I prefer to devote myself entirely, every minute of every day, to peace between the two peoples. I will also have greater credibility in helping to form alliances and encouraging the Arab population to turn out and vote. More fundamentally, I would not feel comfortable in the position of a left-wing opposition figure while Netanyahu takes up the leadership of the right-wing opposition. But I do not wish either to be part of a government that perpetuates the occupation, the settlements and the killing of Palestinians, as the Netanyahu governments have done. That is not my place.

The right will see this “mishmash government” as an opportunity to prepare a return to power. So in response we will need to build something solid, with Jews and Arabs together. And that is what I intend to do.