Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1
Essays on a Promised
Land
3
INDEX
Why
Israel
5
The
End
of
Cynicism
11
On
Zionism
and
Post-‐Zionism
15
How
Zionism
Was
Hijacked
by
the
Right
19
Palestine:
Occupation,
Not
Apartheid
23
Why
is
Israel
Singled
Out?
29
What’s
a
Jew
to
Do?
33
Future
news:
Operation
'Isaac’s
Sacrifice'
37
The
Paradox
of
Force
41
The
One-‐State
Solution
and
'War
of
the
Roses'
45
Would
Herzl
be
Disappointed
in
Israel?
49
Objectivity
&
Bias
in
study
of
Israeli-‐Palestinian
Conflict
57
War
Cannot
Be
Waged
in
a
Democratic
Way
61
Is
The
Proposed
Citizenship
Oath
Discriminatory?
65
Netanyahu:
The
Master
Juggler
69
4
5
Why Israel
May 2006
6
face. Also, I am not a particularly observant person.
Israelis, unfortunately, are used to seeing that the
majority of Jews from America who make Aliyah
are not secular but rather only the ones motivated
by their spiritual convictions.
7
in my view, one that still has a better sense of
balance.
Which leads into the topic of school. See, as an
educational psychologist, I am a big supporter of
public education. I think it has the potential of
being the vehicle to bring about diversity, tolerance,
equality and opportunity for all to our next
generation. The problem is that, as a Zionist Jew, I
also value Jewish education and want my children
to learn Hebrew and Jewish history without having
to have another reason to hate Sundays. Only in
Israel can my children get Public Jewish education,
and one, that for the most part, is still more about
values and experience and not bubble-sheet tests.
I want my children to grow up in a country in which
Jewish values, which are human values, are a
stronger part of the culture. For example: caring for
the disadvantaged is so important, that in Israel,
Universal Health coverage is not a bad word, it is a
national standard (although it has been eroding
lately). The average tuition at any of the national
universities (some of which are at a par with any
Ivy League institution) is less than a third of what
we pay at a regional State College in the U.S.,
making education more affordable to all its youth.
And the value of human life is so high, that not only
is Israel willing to trade hundreds of prisoners to
rescue a single Jewish life, but they won’t even put
the cruelest of terrorists to death (the single death
sentence ever carried out in Israel was that of
Adolph Eichman).
8
(compared to slightly over 40% in the U.S.), and
according to several surveys in the late 90s, the
favorite Hebrew “songs of all time” deal with
themes of peace and life (like Jerusalem of Gold, or
Shir la Shalom). In contrast, a similar U.S. survey
found the favorite songs to be about drugs, sex and
violence.
9
mischief. This mistrust becomes a self-fulfilling
prophecy, and teenagers, as soon as the opportunity
presents itself, experiment with alcohol, drugs and
sex, often without knowledge (or awareness of the
consequences) because we are afraid that teaching
them about these subjects will “legitimize” them. In
Israel, adolescents are often leaders of large youth
movements. Routinely, a couple of 15 or 16 year
olds will be in charge of taking a dozen third
graders camping overnight with little or no adult
supervision. Teenagers have parties, spend the night
at each others houses and go out with friends
without the need for chaperons. As a result, Israeli
teenagers become, on average, more self-regulated
and responsible.
10
11
August 2007
12
of scandals. The situation seems so dire, that when
Israelis were asked about their perception of
corruption in an international survey by
Transparency international, Israel ranked in 28th
place, below almost all other industrialized nations,
and at the level of countries like Malta or Estonia.
However, when the same organization asked “In the
past 12 months have you or anyone living in your
household paid a bribe in any form” only 4% of
Israelis responded yes, a result that put the tiny
nation in the first tier, at par with European and
North American countries (e.g., Japan and Canada
scored 3%, Luxembourg 6%). Another example:
according to the Israel democracy institute, in the
past 10 years, the only prime minister who received
high approval ratings over 40% was Benjamin
Netanyahu, and only for part of his tenure. On
average, Ehud Barak had high approval ratings of
only 16% of the people, Sharon hovered around
30%, and Olmert under 20%. Indeed, this general
suspicion of elected officials has created an unstable
government with high turnout rates: In the last
eleven years, Israel has had five new prime
ministers: Peres, Netanyahu, Barak, Sharon and
Olmert, and if it were up to the Israeli public, we
would be on a sixth by now. In short, it is the norm
to see in the daily opinion pages harsh criticism in
Israel against the establishment, the judiciary
system, the different ministries, the social
institutions, and society in general, and when you
talk to the average Israeli, you will hear nothing but
complaints about the little country’s taxes, attitudes,
education, health system, traffic, religious
intolerance, government and even the weather as if
it were the product of the minister of environment.
13
Now, don’t take me wrong. Self-criticism can be a
positive thing, because it pushes us to improve, to
reflect. But exaggerated self-criticism makes us
loose sight of our accomplishments, erodes the
pride on our country and our people, and creates a
country of pessimists. Cynics become
individualistic and self absorbed because they can’t
trust anybody but themselves. So, for all the
criticism we can level towards Israel, lets not forget
that it truly is an amazing county that did not even
exist 60 years ago. That in this short span, it
managed to absorb 3,000,000 immigrants, relatively
speaking more than any other country in the world.
Whose economy grew at one of the fastest paces in
the west. Israel's per capita GDP increased more
than 500% since it’s foundation. According to the
World Bank, Israel’s per capita GDP (Purchasing
Power Parity) stands at around $26,000,
approximately two thirds of that in the U.S., and
comparable to those of Italy or Germany. Let’s face
it, we have become a regional economic superpower
and a global technological leader.
And in spite of all the criticism, Israel has also
made impressive social gains. For example, just 60
years ago Israeli Arabs where considered a hostile
enemy population under military rule with very
restricted civil rights. Just 45 years go the did not
have the right to vote. Today, even though there is
no denying that they still suffer form prejudice and
discrimination, they now enjoy full equality under
the law with other Israelis and are represented in the
government as members of the Knesset and
ministers in the cabinet. It took America almost
200 years to finally grant full legal equality to its
minorities.
14
So, let’s put things slightly in perspective. Indeed,
we are far away from the Zionist ideal of an
exemplary society. And yes, we do have some
serious problems, chief among them the occupation
of a foreign people that is eating away our
economic, social and moral resources. But if we are
ever to go back to Herzl’s dream, to making his
model country not a legend but something closer to
a reality, we need to be a little less cynical. We have
to be a little less critical, and a little bit prouder. We
have to agree that idealists are nobody’s frayers.
15
December 2008
16
changing the way religion and nationality were
understood in the West. Except, of course, for
Judaism, which remained a national religion.
Today, this situation creates a fundamental
contradiction because nationality and religion are
supposed to be separate, and therefore a national
religion inherently creates conflicts of loyalty. So,
how do we deal with it? One proposition that has
been part of Jewish thinking for the past two
centuries is to define Judaism, just as Christianity
and Islam, as a supranational religion (or “just” a
religion, with no national ties), and therefore
removing the inherent conflict. Many Jews have
supported this position in the past 200 years, and in
their case, Zionism is an aberration, because at a
minimum, it conflates “church and state,” and at
worst, it advocates for a theocratic state. Another
proposition, however, is to define Judaism as “just”
a nationality, which means that you could be a Jew
even if you are agnostic or atheistic. Many secular
and progressive Zionists saw Judaism this way, and
for those who see Judaism as a nationality, Zionism
is not an ideology. It is just a reflection of the basic
right of ANY nation to have a state. Within that
basic concept, there are different ideologies, like
Religious Zionism, Progressive Zionism,
Revisionist Zionism, etc. Consequently, if you see
Zionism as a basic right of the Jewish people, anti-
Zionism is the negation of a people to a basic right,
and therefore equivalent to anti-Semitism.
17
Post-Zionism, on the other hand, is the idea that
Zionism (the National movement of the Jewish
people) is now obsolete since the state of Israel has
been established, and therefore we need to move to
an era in which Israel becomes a state for all its
citizens, and not primarily a state for the Jews. It is
actually a nice idea, and one that is compatible with
the conception of diversity and multiculturalism that
is prevalent among western liberals. The problem is
that a state, and its citizens, have to achieve a
certain level of development, socially, legally, and
economically, before post-Nationalism can be
achieved. In my opinion, no western country has
truly achieved post-Nationalism. I doubt Israel will,
or should, be the first.
However, Weiss goes even further on his argument.
He complaints that Zionism stifles, even castigates
any criticism of Israel. And although some of the
leadership of the Zionist movement in the U.S. are
indeed intolerant of criticism toward Israel, that is
not at all the position of the movement as a whole.
Progressive Zionists, like me, strongly believe that
in order to have a healthy and democratic national
movement, we must welcome, indeed embrace,
constructive criticism and discussion. A Zionist can,
at the same time, support Israel and condemn the
Israeli occupation of the West Bank or the operation
in Gaza. In fact, traditional Zionism in the vein of
Herzl strives for an Israel that is liberal, progressive,
and a model of human rights for the world.
As a liberal in the United States, it is just easier to
pick sides. To negate the contradiction, and just
become a post-Zionist, or even an anti-Zionist. My
guess is that for people like Mr. Weiss and Ms.
Goldstein, is just simpler to jump off the roof and
18
play your violins on the street. Others will jump of
the opposite side, in their unwavering support for
Israel and its policies. But here, in the small camp
of progressive Zionism, every one of us is a fiddler
on the roof, just trying to play a tune and maintain
our balance without breaking our necks.
19
February 2007
20
political Zionism, proposed the creation of a State
for the Jews as the only way for the Jewish people
to end an abnormal situation of a stateless nation,
loathed and rejected everywhere it settled. This
political dream, however, could not come without a
price, human and political. As evidenced by his
utopian novel Altneuland, Herzl understood this,
and therefore believed that the only way to validate
the Zionist enterprise was to build “a light unto the
nations” that would be a progressive model of
justice, democracy, equality and prosperity. Most
other Zionist leaders of the time, like Ber Borochov,
Nahman Syrkin, or A.D. Gordon, also saw in the
birth of the Jewish state the opportunity to create a
utopia, and the justification for such an enterprise in
the possibility of creating an egalitarian state based
on human rights and dignity. In fact, the revisionist
Zionist right wing movement of Zeev Jabotinsky
was the exception, even though many critics of
Israel today portray him as proof of the imperialist
basis of the Zionist movement. Publications of that
era show that the Zionists of the time had,
unfortunately, very little awareness of the Arab
population living in the area, and thought by the
most part that the “progress” they would bring
would be welcomed by small groups of indigenous
inhabitants. And indeed, at the end of the 19th
century, most Arabs living in Palestine had no
quarrels with the small but growing Zionist
colonies. Within a few years, however, Zionists ran
up against the reality that the Palestinians also had
their own national aspirations, triggering a military
conflict that would cost tens of thousands of lives,
and corrupt their early idealism. Moreover, the
Zionist visionaries would have never imagined that
21
the Jewish national utopia would end up as an
occupying power, mainly shaped by the pragmatic
factors emanating from violent conflict, and
criticized by most of the world, justifiably or not, as
a major violator of human rights. Zionism, at its
root, is not only a movement to establish a Jewish
homeland, but a philosophical and ideological
movement in which the establishment of a Jewish
state was seen as a step to affirm humanistic values.
The liberal Israeli writer A. B. Yehoshua contends
that Zionism is not an Ideology, but only a broad
platform. In his view, as long as you support the
existence of a State for the Jewish people in Israel,
you are a Zionist. However, for the majority of the
founders of the movement, a State of Israel that is
militaristic, theocratic and corrupt would not be a
Zionist state; it would only be a state that happens
to be populated by Jews.
Where does that leave us today? I believe that it is
pointless to argue about the culpability of past
abuses and atrocities brought about by the
Arab/Palestinian-Israeli conflict. There is no
denying that both sides have been thrust into an
ugly conflict of retaliation, and that the solution lies
not on re-examining the past to keep finding blame
in each other. The discussion, therefore, has to lie in
the present and in the future of Zionism, not in its
past and in actions that many of us are not proud of.
In the view of present-day Progressive Zionism, a
modern Zionist state can only be justified if it
becomes what it was originally intended to be: a
model of democracy, of equality, and of human
rights. In fact, during the 50s and the early 60s,
Zionism was typically associated in Academia with
left wing liberalism. Yet, on our campus culture of
22
the 21st century, Zionism has ironically been
portrayed by both the Zionist right and the non-
Zionist progressive left as a mainly conservative,
imperialistic movement. I don’t know at what point
academia shifted its view of Zionism, who was
supported by the left as a social democratic
movement who among other progressive
achievements founded the socialist kibbutz. Perhaps
it was after the 1967 war. In any event, I believe it
is time for a paradigm shift in our views. The peace
camp has to reclaim Zionism. Some groups, like the
student Union of Progressive Zionists and the
faculty Jewish Academic Network for Israeli-
Palestinian Peace (JANIP) are already doing that.
But its not enough. Liberal Jewish faculty and
students need to speak out for a renewed movement
to emerge in which the goal is to bring into practice
the humanistic ideals of the original Zionism: An
Israel that will be at the forefront of the fight for
human rights and dignity; a prosperous and
productive Israel that will rival the rest of the world
intellectually and technologically, and use its
knowledge for the betterment of humanity instead
of its destruction; an Israel in which education will
be a priority and a major national enterprise, and in
which children will learn to think critically, to be
creative, multiculturally competent and open to
diversity; an Israel in which the Jewish people will
feel proud to be part of the renewed Zionist
enterprise.
23
April 2007
24
fought against Apartheid is not only a mistake and
an oversimplification, but ultimately a disservice
for the cause of the Palestinian people. Instead, the
approach should be one that promotes dialogue and
reconciliation. But first, some major differences
between South Africa and Israel. First, the root of
apartheid was a white-supremacy racist ideology
that enabled the Afrikaans movement to settle and
displace the Black inhabitants of South Africa
because they saw them as inferior. In contrast, the
Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories was
driven by military considerations, and at least
initially, the settlement enterprise was seen as a
security, not ideological, issue (e.g., the Israeli
government supported the “Allon plan,” that
proposed to settle areas of the West Bank and Gaza
to create “buffer zones” that would ensure secure
borders and strategic advantages over any attacking
armies). Even today, when the security rationale
seems ambiguous, the vast majority of the Jewish
settlers in the occupied territories are still not there
for ideological reasons, but for economic ones,
since housing is cheaper and they get government
subsidies and tax breaks.
The leadership of the Settlement movement has
certainly been religious, but they never espoused a
racist-supremacist ideology, just a “divine”
territorial claim.
The second major difference is that Apartheid
presumes a common citizenship. Two ethnic groups
within the same state receive different levels of
rights because of their ethnicity, just like in the U.S.
before the civil rights movement. The solution to
that problem is to find a formula for a successful
“marriage,” i.e., desegregation, equal rights under
25
the law, etc. The Israeli-Palestinian issue is entirely
different because we are talking about two peoples
and two states. Palestinian citizens of Israel do
enjoy de jure civil and legal rights at par with those
of the Jewish citizens, even if there is de facto
discrimination, analogous to that which minorities
in the U.S. endure. On the other hand, Palestinians
in the occupied territories are considered foreign
nationals both by Israel and by international legal
standards. In this case, the best solution is not
marriage, but divorce. The situation is analogous to
an abusive marriage in which both parties cause,
and suffer, tremendous physical and emotional
damage. The original 1947 UN resolution 181 calls
for two separate states because then, the
international community understood these were two
peoples who could not live together. Current
opinion surveys also show that the vast majority of
both Palestinians and Israelis support a separation
between two states. Just recently, the majority of
Israelis voted for the Olmert government because he
offered a formula to exit the majority of the
territories, and neither the Palestinian Authority nor
the PLO have ever called for a single bi-national
state. The problem, then, is that the Palestinian
territories are a military occupation in a foreign land
that should be a sovereign Palestinian state.
One more problem with the Apartheid analogy is
that it alienates Progressive Zionists, who support
Israel but criticize the occupation, like myself,
because is too reminiscent of the Zionism = Racism
assertion of the 1970s, and then invalidates any
party who spouses it as a possible mediator in the
conflict. Take for example Jimmy Carter, a man
who brokered the first peace treaty between Israel
26
and an Arab neighbor, and who had the credibility
and the credentials to bring both sides together in
dialogue. Now, after he used the apartheid analogy,
the Israelis, even the liberal left, would not accept
him as an impartial arbiter.
Then there is a problem with the tactics of the fight
against Apartheid. South Africa was not a state who
had to fight an endless series of wars with his
neighbors, who was born out of a bloody military
conflict, and populated by hundreds of thousands of
refugees who saw it as a last shelter. Israelis see
their struggle against the Palestinians and the
Muslim world as an existential one, and they are
unlikely to give in to economic threats like boycotts
or divestments. On the contrary, on the short run,
Israelis are more likely to become more entrenched,
radicalized, and make the situation worst for the
Palestinians. In the long term, there are no
guaranties either. In a region as explosive as the
Middle East, all bets are off.
To begin to comprehend the conflict, we need to
recognize that the basis for the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict is psychological. If, as numerous surveys
by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey
Research and the Israeli Steinmetz Center for Peace
Research show, most Israelis and Palestinians agree
on the broad parameters of a peace agreement, then
the obstacles are fear, mistrust, stereotypes, hate and
prejudice. And if that is the case, the solution begins
by fostering mutual dialogue and understanding.
By seeing this as a one-sided conflict, placing the
responsibility solely on Israel and calling for
boycotts and divestment, Progressives are showing
a lack of understanding and an oversimplification of
the complexities of the conflict. Calls for boycotts
27
and divestment are not helping, but making matters
worse. The international community can help, by
facilitating dialogue and promoting encounters, by
insisting on diplomatic contacts and initiatives. To
find a solution, it is vital to recognize that the
mistakes and the responsibility belongs to both
sides of the conflict. Truly progressive people can
make a difference not by condemning one side, but
by validating both peoples’ basic human right for
self determination, and promoting a civil separation
that will improve the odds of a better life for future
generations of Israelis and Palestinians alike.
28
29
December 2008
30
31
rather than a rational one. I believe part of it has to
do with the fact that it is one of the only two major
conflicts between a "Western" developed nation and
a Third World, non-Western people left in modern
times. Indeed, of the other 48 conflicts analyzed in
the Front Page Magazine report, only 11 are still
continuing, and of these, the only other international
one is the Iraq conflict, in which a developed
country is responsible for the deaths of people in a
developing nation.
32
in the long history of the Jewish Diaspora, in which
education and scholarship are held in high regard.
That is why an academic boycott might have a
desirable political effect in Israel, an effect that
might not be expected elsewhere.” (British Medical
Journal, July 2007).
33
January 2009
34
religion, the Egyptians theirs, the Norse theirs, and
so on. So, of course, did the subjects of the nation of
Yehuda, or Judea, which were called Yehudim, or
Jews.
35
another part of you wants to oppose them, and
defend Israel. So, what’s a Jew to do?
36
37
January 2009
38
sanctions leading to a boycott, amid massive
demonstrations on the streets of Paris, London, and
other European capitals.
39
40
41
April, 2009
42
43
international community that, let’s face it, is not
terribly sympathetic to Israel. There is no choice but
a peace process because the alternative is chaos.
44
45
46
existence so intertwined, hate each other intensely,
and a failure to separate and compromise can end
only in disaster. However, the “Roses'” scenario is
exactly what, blindly or naively, one-state solution
proponents are advocating.
47
48
49
Dear William,
50
fast to the things that have made us great: to
liberality, tolerance, love of mankind. Only then is
Zion truly Zion! Indeed, I was sure that the world
would be freed by our liberty, enriched by our
wealth, magnified by our greatness. And whatever
we attempt there to accomplish for our own welfare,
will react powerfully and beneficially for the good
of humanity. Because only here the Jews could
build up a free commonwealth in which they could
strive for the loftiest human aims.
Peace
I envisioned the state of the Jews as a peaceful
country. I believed that the Jews, once settled in
their own state, would probably have no more
enemies. Jerusalem would be a city of peace. In it’s
midst, a splendid Peace Palace, where international
congresses of peace-lovers and scientists were held,
for Jerusalem was now a home for all the best
strivings of the human spirit: for Faith, Love,
Knowledge. This Peace Palace, is an international
center for great undertakings. Its activities are by
no means limited to Palestine and the Jews, but
include all countries and all peoples.
51
warfare, to preserve order internally and externally.
This is what I thought: The army of the Company's
officials will gradually introduce more refined
requirements of life. (Officials include officers of
our defensive forces, who will always form about a
tenth part of our male colonists. They will be
sufficiently numerous to quell mutinies, for the
majority of our colonists will be peaceably
inclined.)
52
increases the value of its surrounding districts in
innumerable ways.
Religion
I saw a modern state, an example of egalitarian,
secular rational law worthy of the upcoming 20th
century. Religion would have been excluded from
public affairs once and for all. The New Society did
not care whether a man sought the eternal verities
in a temple, a church or a mosque, in an art
museum or at a philharmonic concert.
53
religious parties hold the balance of power, and
impose their will over the secular majority.
54
capitalism to create a balanced, progressive society:
Here the bread of the poor is as cheap as the bread
of the rich. There are no speculators in the
necessaries of life. You know how in the co-
operative method has, indeed, become one of the
strongest motives in the new Palestinian
colonization, due chiefly to the efforts of the
organized labor movement.
Environmentalism
Even 100 years ago, I understood that the smart use
of natural resources and forestation was key to the
success of the state of the Jews. I said: We think
nothing too costly for our parks, because they
benefit the growing generation. However, we did
not plant old and expensive trees like these
everywhere. For instance, we brought eucalyptus
trees from Australia which grew very rapidly. Our
first funds for this purpose came from a national
tree-planting Society which collected money in all
parts of the world. People in the Diaspora
contributed money for trees whose shade they were
afterwards to enjoy in Palestine. I also thought of
using natural sources for the production of energy:
I thought that we must study the power of water,
55
and appreciate the forces of electricity. Instead, our
beaches are polluted, our land and rivers
contaminated, and not really making progress in
environmental issues.
Education
I saw free, public, state of the art education, as the
basis for the development of the state: Each
generation is given a new start. Therefore, all our
educational institutions are free from the
elementary schools to the Zion University. All the
pupils must wear the same kind of simple clothing
until they matriculate into the secondary schools.
We think it unethical to single out children
according to their parents' wealth or social rank.
There will be light, attractive, healthy schools for
children, conducted on the most approved modern
systems. Instead, we have segregated schools that
are failing according to international standards, our
universities are declining and tuition is ever more
expensive, and a fair, egalitarian and modern
educational reform seems further and further away.
56
otherwise, all of of it would end up being no more
than a legend.
Sincerely Yours
Theodore
57
58
that in order to understand this protracted conflict,
we cannot avoid the politics behind it, and detach it
from its historical perspective, and therefore the
academic objectivity of the book is an obstacle to
understanding of the conflict. Fox, however, misses
the point of the book. The question is whether
depoliticizing the conflict can help move towards a
solution.
59
60
reaching an agreement? I believe, as is the main
point of the book, that psychological factors such as
mistrust, hatred, fear, stereotypes, and prejudice--
often overlooked-- are as important as
disagreements over borders, refugees, and
settlements. The historical narratives only serve to
maintain a perception of injustice on both sides that
is not conducive to dialogue and reconciliation.
61
62
takes a back seat to “security,” and therefore its
principles get eroded, to the point in which the
citizens might eventually forsake them all together.
63
of expression in Israel, that human rights
organizations that expose immoral conduct by Israel
should be penalized, and support tough penalties for
people who leak classified information exposing
immoral conduct by the army. Finally, these views
were further reflected in a recent bill proposed, not
by the extreme right wing, but by members of the
centrist Kadima faction, outlawing any Israeli
NGOs that provide information to foreign bodies
that result in the prosecution of Israelis for war
crimes.
64
failing to seek every opportunity for peace and the
resulting erosion of democratic values in our little,
visionary state that was suppose to be a light unto
the nations.
65
66
the declaration has no formal legal value. This is
due to the fact that it was ratified before the formal
end of the British Mandate in Palestine and
therefore before the Israeli parliament (Knesset in
Hebrew) had the legal standing to pass laws.
Subsequently, Israel failed to adopt a formal
constitution and instead enacted a series of Basic
Laws. Of those, the Law of Return came closest to
declaring the Jewish character of Israel, by stating
that every Jew has "the right of return" to Israel.
67
in the Occupied Territories, and by agreeing to meet
the Palestinians in direct peace talks. But he has
failed to follow through by standing up to his
rightist coalition in the name of peace.
68
69
70
No serious person can argue that the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict is not complex, or that the
solutions are simple without painful concessions
and sacrifices of both sides. It is clear that any
agreement carries tremendous risk with it. But the
evasive and maneuvers of the current government
just make the situation worst because they send the
signal that we have no end-game. It is not only that
it is hard to get to a solution, we don't even agree on
what this solution should be. And the absence of an
endgame is frustrating and creates hopelessness
among Palestinians, which in turn will eventually
just fuel more violence.