Calling for a shared society

Mohammad Darawshe holds a Master’s degree in Peace and Conflict Management from Haifa University, and is Director of Strategy at Givat Haviva, the Center for Shared Society. Established in 1949, Givat Haviva is the oldest institution working for Jewish- Arab reconciliation inside Israel. The Arabs living in Israel are descended from the Palestinians who remained in the country after 1948, and they account for 21% of the population. Every year, Givat Haviva receives between 3,000 and 10,000 Jewish and Arab children either in its school, or for ad hoc events. Mohammad Darawshe is a political activist and tireless advocate for Arab integration into Israeli society. Until 2000, he headed the campaigns of the Arab Democratic Party and the United Arab List. He would like to see Arab parties included in a system of political alternance, and is concerned about far-right threats to exclude them from the next elections. His remarks constitute a powerful argument for Jewish- Arab coexistence within the State of Israel.

M. T.

Michel Taubmann — How would you describe yourself? As an Arab Israeli? An Israeli Arab? A Palestinian from Israel, or a Palestinian Israeli?

Mohammad Darawshe — I define myself as a Palestinian citizen of Israel. My ethnic, cultural and social identity is Palestinian, while the civic, economic and social context in which I live is Israeli. This duality explains the complexity of my life experience. I have had to learn to coexist within these overlapping spheres, to accept the tensions between them, and to find a balance between my historical roots and the future I seek to build, while maintaining a difficult dual loyalty to both my people and my state.

M. T. — What was your personal career path? How did you come to manage Givat Haviva?

M. D. — I place life and humanity at the heart of everything I do. I’m the father of four children, three girls and a boy. I want to leave them an ecosystem capable of guaranteeing them and their descendants personal security. My family has lived for 800 years – 27 generations! – in the same village, Ixal, which appears in the Old Testament (Joshua 19.12) as Casaloth Tabor. My children represent the 28th generation. And I hope that my granddaughter Maryam, who is two years old, will be able to spend her life in the same town, in security and prosperity, and her children after her.

M. T. — How do you reconcile your two identities, Israeli and Palestinian?

M. D. — Maybe I’m naïve, but I believe in the promise made to my grandfather in the Declaration of Independence of the State of Israel. It invited the Palestinians living on this land in 1948 to stay and participate in the country’s prosperity and development. I want Israel to keep the promise of political and social equality that was made to my grandfather. But even though we are Israelis, we belong to the Palestinian people, whom most Jews regard as enemies. I want to be loyal to my country, Israel, and I consider the security needs of Israeli Jews legitimate. But I also want to be loyal to the Palestinian people I come from. I respect their quest for independence, freedom and statehood, and this puts me at odds with many Jewish citizens of Israel, who see this aspiration as contrary to Israel’s interests. So for over forty years, I’ve been working to reconcile both peoples’ objectives, and, despite the difficulties, many projects are moving in the right direction.

M. T. — What are the conditions for success?

M. D. — Two things are essential: establishing good relations, and striving for equality. Some people believe that a good relationship between horse and rider is possible. But a horse, pampered for years by its rider, knows that it can end up on his plate – at least in countries where horses are eaten! I want coexistence based on equality: either as two horses pulling the same cart, or two riders advancing side by side.

M. T. — How do you hope to attain these two objectives?

M. D. — There are two ways of doing it. One is by outright rebellion, which sometimes produces results, but I prefer the other approach, which is to gradually accumulate one success after the other. Jewish- Arab relations must be built on mutual interests that can endure over time, even in periods of crisis. I’m not talking about peace between different ideologies, but practical, concrete ideals armored by their successes to withstand serious crises like the current one. We are not doomed to be eternal enemies!

M. T. — In your forty-year battle for this practical peace, what have been the most difficult moments and, conversely, the greatest satisfactions?

M. D. — The worst moment was when the Knesset passed the Nation-State Law (1) on July 19, 2018. With this act, Israel rejected the promise of political and social equality made to my grandfather, and threw it in our faces. This change in the Basic Law turned Arabs into second-class citizens. It was a sad and shocking blow, coming on top of the 28 anti-democratic, especially anti-Arab, laws that have been passed since Netanyahu’s return to power in 2009. And of course the situation has worsened since the formation of the last government three years ago and, above all, the war following the Hamas massacres on October 7, 2023.

M. T. — And the most positive moment?

M. D. — One of the most positive moments was under the Bennett- Lapid Government of Change in 2021-2022, when Mansour Abbas’ United Arab List joined the government coalition. This was the first time that an Arab party had been part of Israel’s decision-making apparatus, although the Rabin cabinet broke precedent between 1992 and 1996 by relying unofficially on two Arab parties, which formed a preventive bloc outside the coalition to secure the government majority before the Oslo Accords were signed. This unofficial support allowed the Arab community to make considerable social, economic and educational progress. This golden age, as we used to call it, was accompanied by a reduction in inequality. For example, over four years the budget for Arab municipalities and neighborhoods rose from 7% to 13% of the national budget. But the movement towards inclusiveness has been jeopardized by the Nation-State Law, which enshrined the country’s exclusively Jewish orientation. Policy changes affecting development, land allocation, municipalities, housing, education, etc. have resulted in discrimination.

M. T. — Has the Nation-State Law destroyed the gains made by the Arab community in Israel?

M. D. — The glass may be half empty, but it’s also half full. I find it very significant that in 2003 the percentage of Arab students in Israeli universities was 3.5%, while today it stands at 20%. A sixfold increase! That’s enormous! And that’s not all. In 24 years, the proportion of Arab doctors in Israeli hospitals has risen from 11% to 24%, while Arabs now account for 36% of dentists, 44% of nurses and 55% of pharmacists. These are what I call “islands of success,” where the Arab community has strengthened its presence without harming the Jewish community. For example, the percentage of Arab civil servants working for the central government rose from only 1.7% in 2003 to 13.2% in 2024. In high-tech, the percentage of Arabs has risen from 1% seven years ago to 7% today. And 23% of engineering students at Israeli universities are Arabs. Just imagine the positive impact this will have on the job market over the next few years!

M. T. — What about education?

M. D. — In 2005, in an effort to break down separation within the education system, we launched a cross-sector program which placed Jewish teachers in Arab schools and Arab teachers in Jewish schools. Initially, this involved six teachers. Today, there are 2,500 teachers: 2,000 Arab teachers in Jewish schools, and 500 Jewish teachers in Arab schools. Almost 20% of Jewish schools employ Arab teachers, and 20% of Arab schools employ Jewish teachers. This is another “island of success” that must be preserved, despite the policies of the current government, which is trying to roll the program back.

M. T. — What impact has the war had on Jewish-Arab relations within Israel?

M. D. — In January 2024, Givat Haviva conducted its annual survey of mutual fear and mistrust between communities. Before October 7, 2023, 48% of Israeli Jews had said they had never visited an Arab city and had no intention of doing so, but by January 2024 this figure had risen to 81%. The study also showed a 65% increase in mistrust and fear among Jews. As for Arab citizens, prior to October 7, 24% of respondents had said they had never set foot in a Jewish city and had no intention of doing so. In 2024, the figure rose to 52%. Despite this, despite the interminable duration of the war and the attempts to destroy our relations, we have managed to avoid physical confrontation. Hamas’s appeals to Arab citizens of Israel to open a new front have met with no response. Representatives of the extreme right in Israel are also trying to exacerbate intercommunal tensions. Their activism has resulted in the dismissal of Arab employees and restrictions on Arab students, including arrests and lawsuits limiting freedom of expression. These developments have widened the gap between the two communities, but thanks to goodwill and lessons learned from the past, we have managed to defuse the violence. On the political level, the far-right government has exploited the climate of mistrust to delegitimize Arab citizenship, even calling for it to be abolished, thus reducing democracy to a mere instrument at the service of the Jewish majority. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich (2) has imposed a 5% cut on all budget lines in the 2024-2025 budget to finance the war, but for Arab municipalities the amount is 20%! Why this discrimination when we are all citizens of Israel? These very harsh, very disappointing measures keep us fluctuating between optimism and pessimism.

M. T. — Do you take seriously the threats to exclude Arab parties from the Knesset for alleged collusion with terrorism?

M. D. — I take these threats by Netanyahu, his Likud party, and the other coalition partners very seriously. Their aim is to ensure that the current coalition stays in power by excluding 21% of the population from the political system. But why intimidate the Arab community and isolate it from the mainstream of Israeli society? A vision of democracy reserved solely for Jews undermines equality and constitutes institutionalized racism.

M. T. — Within your institution, Givat Haviva, did the shock of October 7 lead you personally to take any particular measures to maintain cohesion among teachers and students?

M. D. — The level of mutual fear and mistrust in society has inevitably affected personal and professional relations between colleagues. Mistrust has also deepened among students, and rebuilding it will require very strong measures. In spite of everything, we’ve managed to overcome the tensions, because we all want to protect what we’ve built together over the last few decades.

M. T. — Do you have guidelines for dealing with crises?

M. D. — This is unfortunately not the first time we’ve experienced such a serious crisis. We are always confronted with the same four levels of challenge. The first level is “romantic.” We are all human beings, which means that we can eat hummus together and forget about the prisms of politics and ethnicity. This conviviality is essential and must be preserved by involving young people in as many shared activities as possible. Givat Haviva brings together between 3,000 and 10,000 children for events every year. But we have to take into account the “homecoming syndrome,” by which I mean a return to stereotypes. When the children go home to their parents, they are told that they have met the only 20 good Jews in the world (or the only 20 good Arabs, as the case may be) and that the others are their enemies. Yet despite these obstacles I am convinced that we must continue our activities. Every Jewish child and every Arab child in Israel deserves to have the experience of mutual trust, even if only once in a lifetime, even if only for two or three days.

The second challenge, which developed around the year 2000, is to go beyond conviviality and establish an honest dialogue on our points of disagreement. How do we see October 7th? How do we view the Hamas takeover of Gaza in 2007? What does 1967 represent? Why was it Occupation for some and Liberation for others? How do we see 1948? Was it the Nakba or Independence? How do we view the Balfour Declaration of 1917? And, at the end, we come to the question: Who did Abraham want to sacrifice? Ishmael or Isaac? If the dialogue is to be honest, we have to agree to disagree on most of the questions I’ve mentioned, and on a thousand other issues. To live together, we have to acknowledge the fact that we cannot agree. In any case, we cannot create a shared narrative as long as the conflict lasts. Despite two years of war, we remain hopeful that tomorrow we’ll still be able to live together.

M. T. — What are the reasons for hope?

M. D. — There are plenty of reasons. Take, for example, the medical sector, where the proportion of Arabs has risen from 30% to 40%, to compensate for the absence of many Jewish Israelis who have been drafted into the army. These Arabs fulfill their professional, human and civic duty by caring for their compatriots, regardless of their ethnic, cultural, social or political identity. The same goes for the 50% of Arab bus drivers, 50% of cab drivers and 65% of truck drivers. They are not letting themselves be drawn into the war, despite the pressure exerted by extremists on both sides.

M. T. — What can be done to strengthen the cohesion of Israeli society?

M. D. — It’s important to focus on the state’s civic identity, rather than its ethnic identity, as the common denominator for both populations. Then we can focus on the third challenge: the question of mutual interests, of which there are many. I’ve already mentioned the medical sector. There’s also the environment, the economy, advanced technology, everything to do with everyday consumerism and the art of living. We must make sure that these islands of success are of benefit to both parties. This will take us to the fourth challenge: the social contract. The question that then arises is that of equality. If you ask Israelis whether they support the notion of a “shared society” (based on two criteria: good relations between Jews and Arabs, and/or equality), almost 65% of the Jewish population and 85% of the Arab population say yes. So there doesn’t seem to be a problem. But most Jews will favor good relations that lead to equality, while most Arab citizens see equality as paving the way for good relations. At Givat Haviva, we believe it’s necessary to work on both criteria in tandem, without prioritizing one or the other. If you prioritize one, it amounts to relativizing the importance of the other. Over time, we’ve learned that a combined strategy is needed. Over 180 groups in Israel work in the field of Jewish-Arab relations. Most Jewish-run organizations emphasize, as I’ve just told you, the principle of good relations. Most Arab-run organizations emphasize the principle of equality. Very few place these two values on the same level. Yet it is by combining them that we will succeed in building a shared society.

M. T. — How can the number of politically-involved Israeli Arabs be increased?

M. D. — In June 2021, when the Bennett-Lapid government was formed, it had for the first time the official support of an Arab party (which did not, however, participate in the government), and a survey conducted at that time showed that 37% of Jews and 53% of Arabs were “in favor of including an Arab political party in the coalition.” When the same question was asked in May 2023, before a conference in Givat Haviva, Jewish support for Arab participation had risen to 47%, with 46% opposed. In the Arab community, support had risen from 53% to 83% in two years. So I believe the Bennett-Lapid experiment worked. Unfortunately, it was short- lived, and many of its promises were not kept, notably with regard to investment in education and housing construction in Arab towns and neighborhoods, and the hiring of additional police to combat the high level of crime in our community. But this 18-month experiment set a precedent, and created an appetite for Jewish-Arab cooperation.

M. T. — According to most polls, Netanyahu’s opponents will find it difficult in the run-up to the 2026 elections to form a majority coalition without the support of Arab parties, which seem, however, to be very divided between the secular and the religious. Will the Arab parties at least succeed in forming a single list that would enable them to win some 15 seats, as they did in 2020?

M. D. — One of the problems with the Ra’am party’s United Arab List led by Mansour Abbas, which took part in the coalition of change in 2021 and 2022, is its strong Islamist component. He is in the process of remedying this by making a radical break with Muslim Brotherhood doctrine. The Israeli right claims that this is a tactical maneuver to avoid being banned for complicity with terrorists. In reality, Mansour Abbas is taking a political, and even a physical, risk. The transformation of his party will enable him to bring in more secular liberals and thereby mobilize the less religious Arab voters.

M. T. — What political configuration would it take to allow Arab ministers to sit in the government?

M. D. — The government of 2021-2022 gave us a glimpse of this. It would require a coalition combining center-left political parties, the “soft” right, and the United Arab List. In other words, Gantz, Lapid, the Democrats, Bennett, all those, secular or religious, who come from the “soft” right, and of course the pragmatic Arab formations. I’m sure that a majority can be formed to pull the country back up when the war is over. I invited Gantz to speak at a conference in Givat Haviva on January 9, 2024. He gave the best speech ever given by an Israeli-Jewish political leader in favor of a shared society. He showed that he really believes in it and wants equality. But it’s not just him. The current Interior Minister, who is from the Shas party, has also spoken out in favor of a shared society, agreeing with about 99% of what I’ve told you. And Shas also represents a section of the Haredim, the ultra-Orthodox. Beyond the far-right parties of Ben Gvir and Smotrich, there are also ultra-Orthodox clerics in favor of a shared society based on equality. For the time being, most party leaders rule out any Arab participation in a future coalition, fearing the reactions of voters traumatized by the October 7th tragedy. However, I hope soon to hear them saying: “If you increase your participation rate, we’ll offer you a place in the next coalition, and even ministerial posts.”

M. T. — Have you identified any possible future ministers in Arab civil society?

M. D. — There’s no shortage of high-quality profiles. For example, the University of Haifa has appointed Mouna Maroun, an Arab professor and neuroscientist of the highest calibre, as its Rector. This is a first for an Israeli university. She has all the qualifications to one day become Israel’s Minister of Higher Education. Another example: the former president of Bank Leumi was an Arab economist. Why shouldn’t he be Minister of the Economy? Michael Karayanni was head of the law department at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. He could be the next Minister of Justice. The list goes on. I understand that Jewish society may see this as a problem, but many Arabs trained in Israeli universities and schools are ready to participate loyally in the running of the country. It would be an excellent way to make our minority feel fully Israeli, and proud of it.

M. T. — It may come as a surprise to those who believe in simple ideas, but the tragedy of October 7th revealed a very high level of loyalty among Israeli Arabs to the country of which they are citizens.

M. D. — According to a survey carried out in 2024 by the Israeli Institute for Democracy, 70% of Arab citizens said that their sense of belonging to Israeli society had increased since October 7. And 85% of Arab citizens condemned the massacres perpetrated by Hamas, declaring more or less loudly: “Not in our name as Israelis, nor in our name as Arabs, nor in our name as Palestinians, nor in our name as Muslims.” This kind of message shows that they are growing increasingly close to the Jewish population. It is consistent with what happened on October 7, when 36 Arab citizens were killed. Most of them died as heroes, trying to save their Jewish compatriots. One of my cousins, an ambulance driver at the Supernova party, refused to evacuate the scene, but continued to treat the wounded until he himself was killed. Like him, many Arabs working in the medical field, as well as many Arabs from the Bedouin community, came to the aid of their Jewish countrymen. These stories have forged a shared consciousness, a sense that we’re all in the same boat. The key lies in the question of Israeli identity. Today, 67% of Israeli- Arab citizens define themselves as Palestinians, but if a Palestinian state is created, they will remain Israelis. Israel is where they have made their lives for four generations, and where their future lies. They must continue to learn to become Israelis. Mind you, the Jews must also continue to learn how to become Israelis. Neither of them must allow themselves to be locked into, or lock themselves into, their Jewish or Arab identity. For Arab citizens, this means a better command of Hebrew, and high-level education and training which allow them better access to the job market. One of my daughters, who is preparing a doctorate in genetics, is also doing a master’s degree in medical entrepreneurship. Unfortunately, the process of integration through study and work is slowed down by the Nation-State Law, which translates into unequal funding, fewer job opportunities, and discriminatory political measures. On the other hand, more and more companies are promoting diversity and inclusion. For example, on May 21, 2021, following violent incidents between Jews and Arabs in mixed cities (3), huge billboards calling for coexistence sprang up on the walls of Tel Aviv at the initiative of banks and companies. Why? Because they have more and more Arab staff, and they want to preserve good professional relations. At the same time, they are sending a message to their growing Arab clientele.

M. T. — Is this the theory of mutual interest?

M. D. — Yes, it’s what I also call the higher-purpose theory, which aims at interdependence. Despite the hostility of certain political leaders, this interdependence is progressing. Even with Bezalel Smotrich at its head, the Ministry of Finance is promoting strategies to integrate Arab citizens. The same goes for the Ministry of the Economy and the Ministry of Employment. They support our work, even more than the Ministry of Education or the Ministry of Social Equality. The Ministry of Finance wants to see more Arab women working, because then they become taxpayers rather than welfare recipients. It’s good for the economy. But to work, you have to be educated. Thus, in the space of twenty years, the proportion of women among Arab students of higher education has risen from 35% to 72%! It’s a tremendous change that is helping to integrate the Arab community into Israeli society.

M. T. — Could Palestinian Israelis play a bridging role between their country and the Palestinians in the Territories?

M. D. — Israel’s Arab citizens can indeed play an important role in bringing about peace between their country and their people. However, as with any bridge, solid foundations are needed on both sides, hence the need to strengthen our political and social status in Israel, and also to embrace our Palestinian identity. In this dual role, we can act as mediators on the political front, and also build an economic, academic and social bridge that fosters partnerships and cooperation. Most importantly, we can help translate a peace agreement into concrete measures, making sure that principles are applied in ways that benefit both societies and ensure a lasting coexistence.

M. T. — Doesn’t the success and upward mobility of the Arab population run the risk of scaring off some of the Jewish population, who might fear a weakening of the State’s Jewish identity?

M. D. — This is a fundamental question, which I have addressed in an article published in a book entitled 75 Faces of the Jewish State. It discusses the relationship between the Jewish character and the Israeli character of the State of Israel. In my view, Israel’s most important export is not advanced technology in the fields of defense or espionage, but everything that contributes to its moral legitimacy. By establishing peaceful Jewish-Arab relations in Israel, it can be shown that the Jews did not come to the Middle East to control and oppress the Arabs, but to live in peace with them. If we succeed in creating a model of shared society based on the equality of citizens in Israel, then we will be able to influence and even rally the civilian populations of Arab countries, not just their governments.

Of course, we won’t convince Israeli extremists, who don’t believe in equality. But I’m counting on public opinion, which is in majority moderate, and on all those who are capable of thinking in terms of long-term mutual interest, and not just of ethnic interest, which is only valid in the short term.

M. T. — Doesn’t the relatively good integration of Arabs within Israel argue in favor of a single bi-national state?

M. D. — I don’t believe that a single bi-national state is a realistic option today. The vast majority of Israelis are opposed to it. For their part, the Palestinians aspire to freedom and independence after decades of occupation. For this reason, the two-state solution remains the most appropriate framework. Two sovereign states can establish peaceful relations through economic, environmental and security cooperation, thereby creating mutual interdependence and stability.

M. T. — Despite everything, are you still hopeful?

M. D. — The events of October 7 and their aftermath have deepened divisions, but they have also highlighted the urgent need for renewed dialogue, political reform, and inclusive democracy. Israel’s Arab citizens are at the heart of the equation. Although they are politically marginalized, only they are capable of bridging the gap between the two peoples and charting a path towards peace and coexistence. The future will depend on the strengthening of democratic values, the acceptance of diversity, and the ability of both peoples to share a vision of equality and mutual respect.