Gavison, one of the members of the Or Commission herself, spoke about the authority of Commissions of Inquiry in general and discussed the situation of the Arab-Jewish relations in Israel as she sees it for the future.

Prof. Gavison views the Or Commission Report as a very important document which demonstrates that the relations between the Jewish majority and the Arab minority in Israel is a “major challenge that everyone must constantly address, because it is the very essence of our life in Israel.”

She pointed out, however, that it seems that Commissions of Inquiry give rise to unrealistic expectations among the public. The evidence for that was the Arab population’s disappointment at what they considered a failure of the Commission to attribute blame to political officials. According to Prof. Gavison however, although commissions of inquiry in Israel typically consider themselves competent to formulate personal recommendations concerning publicly elected officials, they should – as the Or Commission did with reference to Arab public leaders for example – avoid such conclusions. “A Commission of Inquiry as ‘ad-hoc’ entity has its advantages and disadvantages” explained Gavison. On the one hand, its lack of obligation to any party allows it to be critical and straightforward. On the other hand, it has no influence after it completes its task for which it was appointed. It has no control whatsoever over the implementation of its recommendations. This power stays in the hands of the ordinary public institutions. The job of a Commissions of Inquiry is thus to analyze, to investigate and to give answers to the fundamental and difficult questions, rather than dealing with blame and punishment.

Prof. Gavison analyzed the Commission’s basic assumptions and its recommendations, which emphasized the inequality and neglect of the Arab society in Israel, and linked the reduction of gaps between these two sectors with the elimination of discrimination against minorities. She believes, however, that the programmatic outline proposed by the Commission was based on the overly optimistic assumption that all sectors of Israeli society share a common ground for action. She noted that the need to eliminate discrimination is uncontested but there is no consensus on the root causes of the disparities between the sectors. As a result, there is no guarantee that elimination of discrimination will reduce the disparities. Consequently, what is needed is extensive and meticulous action to promote equality between Arabs and Jews in Israel.

Nevertheless, Gavison says that one of the most important premises of the Or Commission was that Israel is and should remain a Jewish and democratic state. The commission was aware of the Arab population’s difficulty in accepting the definition of Israel as a Jewish state and expressed strong empathy towards their identity predicament. However a clear distinction should be made between the relationship of Arabs and Jews within Israel, and Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians. Arabs who chose to live in Israel must accept their status as a minority.

Gavison claims that there is no other vision for the State of Israel, other than the vision outlined by the Commission: a society in which the Jewish majority and Arab minority live alongside each other as equal citizens in a state that carefully maintains both its unique Jewish character and its democratic features and the rule of law.