The Orr State Commission of Inquiry established to investigate the circumstances surrounding the clashes between the security forces and Israeli citizens in October 2000 warned against viewing the entire Arab public as an enemy. As it transpires from Zulat’s report – authored by Adv. Eitay Mack and steering committee members Dr. Manal Totry-Jubran and Dr. Rawia Aburabia – that is exactly how state authorities treated the Arab public from the start of the war on 7 October 2023 with regard to the exercise of freedom of expression and the right to protest. The report describes the systematic silencing of the Arab public throughout two years of war, until the signing of the ceasefire agreement on 9 October 2025, which was accompanied by political persecution.
Based on published academic studies, court proceedings, and numerous documented cases, Zulat concludes that although the protection of the Arab public’s freedoms of expression and assembly was flawed and these freedoms were frequently breached even before the war, often with the approval of the Supreme Court, these violations became a broad consensus and reached unprecedented negative levels during the war.
The silencing policy, which was carried out with the support and encouragement of state authorities (the Israel Police, the Knesset, the government, the State Attorney’s Office, and the Supreme Court) sent a clear message to the Arab public: it is forbidden to oppose the war, voice grief over the killing and starvation in Gaza, question the version of events of the government and security forces, or express solidarity with Palestinian victims. Anyone who did so risked being labeled a supporter of terrorism or a traitor and faced threats to their personal safety, dismissal from their job, disciplinary proceedings, or criminal prosecution. Although the authorities also harassed anti-war Jewish citizens, the risk and cost for Arab citizens were incomparably greater.
This message, and the actions taken by various authorities to enforce it, had an enormous chilling effect. During the war, demonstrations and protests declined significantly, as did the volume of public pronouncements by the Arab community, both on social media and in the public sphere in general. This effect continues to shape the level of political expression of this community.
The report describes how the law enforcement authorities conducted this silencing policy:
- The Israel Police broadly defined the exercise of the Arab public’s freedoms of expression and assembly as a security threat and as support for terrorism. Under the leadership of National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and then-Police Commissioner Yaakov Shabtai, the police adopted the view that allowing Arab protest amounted to legitimizing support for Hamas and could lead to Operation Guardian of the Walls 2. Based on this view, which was not grounded in facts, sweeping restrictions were imposed on demonstrations and protests by the Arab public, as well as on their statements on social media.
- The State Attorney and the Attorney General legitimized this policy. In their responses to petitions submitted to the Supreme Court, they supported the police position and accepted the argument that protests by the Arab public constituted a threat to public order and security. A central aspect of this policy was the dramatic expansion of enforcement of the incitement offense and the authorization granted to the police to investigate suspected violations without the State Attorney’s approval, contrary to the restrictive approach that had been pursued in the past. Within a short period, hundreds of cases were opened and dozens of indictments were filed against Arab citizens.
- The Supreme Court approved Israel Police’s policy and granted it nearly absolute discretion. Once the war began, the justices who had previously limited the police’s powers and ruled that demonstrations could be restricted only where there was near certainty of serious harm to public order, shifted the focus to security considerations vis-à-vis the Arab public. They accepted the police position that the exercise of freedoms of expression and assembly by Arabs constituted a security risk requiring manpower resources that were scarce, and granted it nearly absolute discretion to prevent or restrict Arab protests.
As a result of these policy changes, a wide range of measures were taken to suppress the freedom of expression of Arab citizens of Israel. Among other things, the police interfered with the content of protests. Even before the war, under Minister Ben-Gvir’s instructions, the display of the Palestinian flag had effectively become a criminal offense, and police officers were ordered to confiscate flags and prevent their hoisting. After the outbreak of the war, however, the situation worsened significantly, and the policy was sweepingly applied nationwide. Similarly, police repeatedly confiscated signs against the war, the killing, and the starvation in Gaza, bearing slogans such as “Stop the Massacre” or “There Are Civilians in Gaza.” Supreme Court justices chose not to intervene, even though petitioners presented evidence that the police were systematically violating previous court rulings.
Incitement against Arab elected figures and efforts to silence them broke records during the war. While these phenomena are not new in Israeli politics, during the war they became part of the consensus. The use of expulsion and disciplinary proceedings against Arab elected officials increased, with cross-party support, and they were repeatedly subjected to false accusations of being terrorists or supporters of terrorism. Some opposition parties and MKs joined the chorus of incitement, while others stood by silently. The unchecked incitement also led to physical violence.
The silencing was not limited to street demonstrations but spilled over into the labor market and academia. The report describes the persecution and silencing of Arab employees, professionals, artists, and academics that included dismissal and suspension from work, as well as highly publicized arrests of teachers, doctors, academics, artists, and business owners, most of which ultimately came to nothing. The chilling effect was intensified in academia following decisions by the Minister of Education and the Council for Higher Education, inflammatory and abusive discussions in the Knesset, the creation of snitching hotlines to report “support for terrorism,” and extensive disciplinary proceedings almost exclusively targeting Arab students over social media posts expressing grief and solidarity with residents of the Gaza Strip. The silencing campaign relied to a considerable extent on ordinary citizens who rushed to report Arabs’ statements to the authorities and called for boycotting and firing them from their jobs.
The Israeli media participated in the muzzling effort. The report elaborates on the extreme exclusion of Arab speakers and on studies indicating a historic low in the proportion of Arab interviewees and commentators. Arab journalists described a climate where almost any criticism of the military or presentation of a Palestinian narrative could lead to charges of harming state security and supporting terrorism. Numerous cases were also documented of violence, threats, and detentions by police officers and civilians that led Arab journalists and photographers to avoid broadcasting from outside Arab localities.
The report emphasizes the government’s efforts to undermine the legitimacy of the participation of the Arab public in elections and in the “political arena,” with the aim of ensuring a permanent majority for right-wing governments in the Knesset. Restrictions on political expression, public rallies, events, and campaigns significantly impair the Arab public’s ability to participate on an equal and effective basis. This is not a mere question of minority rights but part of a broader process of shrinking the democratic space.
The report concludes that addressing the declining protection of the freedoms of expression and assembly of Israel’s minority population is an essential part of addressing Israel’s system of government. Recognition and protection of these rights are prerequisites of a democratic regime. Accordingly, the report proposes to anchor the right to equality and the freedoms of expression and assembly in Israel’s Basic Laws, as an essential part of the process of returning to a democratic path and ensuring that Israel can uphold the principles of democracy and justice for all its citizens.
