Skip to content

  • Home
  • Subscribe / donate
  • Events calendar
  • News
    • Local
    • National
    • Israel
    • World
    • עניין בחדשות
      A roundup of news in Canada and further afield, in Hebrew.
  • Opinion
    • From the JI
    • Op-Ed
  • Arts & Culture
    • Performing Arts
    • Music
    • Books
    • Visual Arts
    • TV & Film
  • Life
    • Celebrating the Holidays
    • Travel
    • The Daily Snooze
      Cartoons by Jacob Samuel
    • Mystery Photo
      Help the JI and JMABC fill in the gaps in our archives.
  • Community Links
    • Organizations, Etc.
    • Other News Sources & Blogs
    • Business Directory
  • FAQ
  • JI Chai Celebration
  • JI@88! video

Search

Follow @JewishIndie
image - The CJN Magazine ad

Recent Posts

  • Krieger takes on new roles
  • New day school opens
  • An ever-changing city
  • Marazzi at VHEC helm
  • Victoria’s new market
  • Tikva secures 45 rental units
  • Broadway for a good cause
  • The Mousetrap run extended
  • Family Day at the farm
  • Bard mounts two comedies
  • Looking for volunteers
  • Jacob Samuel’s new special
  • Sharing a personal journey
  • Community milestones … for July 2025
  • Two Yiddish-speaking Bluenosers
  • Forgotten music performed
  • Love learning, stay curious
  • Flying through our life
  • From the JI archives … BC
  • A tofu dish worth the effort
  • לאן נתניהו לוקח את ישראל
  • Enjoy the best of Broadway
  • Jewish students staying strong
  • An uplifting moment
  • Our Jewish-Canadian identity
  • Life amid 12-Day War
  • Trying to counter hate
  • Omnitsky’s new place
  • Two visions that complement
  • A melting pot of styles
  • Library a rare public space
  • TUTS debut for Newman
  • Harper to speak here
  • A night of impact, generosity
  • Event raises spirit, support
  • BC celebrates Shavuot

Archives

Tag: Einat Wilf

Israel and its neighbours at an inflection point: Wilf

Israel and its neighbours at an inflection point: Wilf

Rabbi Andrew Rosenblatt speaks with Einat Wilf, Israeli author and thinker, who shared her views on the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. (photo by Adele Lewin)

Israel and its region are in a moment of danger and opportunity, according to Einat Wilf, who spoke in Vancouver April 25.

The Israeli author, commentator and former Labour Party member of the Knesset, said Israel and those who wish to destroy it have been locked in a repetitive series of disasters for almost 80 years. The current moment could alter – or enforce – that dynamic. 

“This is a moment when, if we do not do the right things, we will remain stuck in a loop,” she said at Schara Tzedeck Synagogue. 

The cycle of conflict has dragged on because of a scenario in which, she said, “the Jews are never allowed to win, the Arabs are never allowed to lose – or at least are never allowed to acknowledge defeat.”

Wilf calls this the “tragedy of ceasefires.”

The Arab world tried to prevent the creation of a Jewish state and then, since 1948, has attempted to undo the existence of that state. This is the core of the conflict, she argued. 

“When it becomes clear that they are about to fail, what people call for is a ceasefire,” she said. “But what would actually help us is not a ceasefire. What would help us is to bring back the great ideas of victory and defeat, because those are actually necessary for us to get to peace.”

Instead, the world demands that the parties go back to the negotiating table, as if nothing had happened, she said.

“People talk about the conflict constantly going on, as if it’s by some bizarre coincidence,” she said. “It’s not. It’s because the Arab side for decades has been constantly told, try again, try again. If you haven’t succeeded this time, try again.”

One of the ruptures in the dialogue, Wilf said, is the idea that the only thing standing between 

Israelis and peace is the establishment of a Palestinian state. This has been the driving force in decades of peace efforts, “only to realize that this is not what the Palestinians had ever wanted.”

The problem, she said, is that many Jews and others refuse to take the plainly stated Palestinian and Arab message at face value. Many Jews on her social media feed disagree with her, she said. Many Arabs, by contrast, are up-front. 

“The Arabs on my feed would write this: ‘You are settler-colonialist, white Europeans. Get out.’ I love that,” she said. “They’re saying there shouldn’t be a Jewish state.” And yet, the Jews who comment, she said, keep coming back to settlements, the occupation and other issues that ignore that the root of the problem is a Palestinian and larger Arab refusal to accept the existence of a Jewish state in any part of the region, said Wilf.

Two Israeli prime ministers, Ehud Barack in 2000 and Ehud Olmert in 2008, tried to negotiate a resolution, only to find that two different Palestinian leaders, Yasser Arafat in 2000 and Mahmoud Abbas in 2008, walked away and reverted to violence, she said. Between those two administrations, a different prime minister, Ariel Sharon, decided that, if the Palestinians would not sign an agreement, he would just give them land. 

“He gets out of the Gaza Strip to the last square inch, and we know what they did with that control of the territory,” said Wilf. 

The devastation experienced by Gaza and its people in the current war is a tragic moment, but also a possible turning point.

“Moments of ruin and destruction, both in personal as in collective lives, can be moments of growth and transformation,” she said. “But only if you acknowledge the possibility.”

Wilf admits that people say she speaks harshly.

“I do,” she agreed. “Because we have not benefited from people who soften the message. We try to cut corners, we don’t go to touch the molten lava that is at the core of our conflict.”

For years, long before Oct. 7, European capitals have been sending money to Palestinian regimes to feel good about themselves, she said. “But it does no good. It just extends the conflict.” 

She tells European audiences to change their approach. “You want to do good?” she asks. “You need to tell the Palestinians, given that your goal in the last century was to prevent and then to undo the existence of a Jewish state: you lost, and it’s over. You can find a dignified life next to a Jewish state but not instead of it.”

Hard truths are difficult to dislodge, said Wilf, and they can be perpetuated at the highest levels. When Joe Biden, then the US president, visited Israel after Oct. 7, Wilf said, he went out of his way to argue that Hamas does not represent ordinary Palestinians.

“It’s a lie that we often tell to comfort ourselves,” argued Wilf. “Hamas is merely the most brutal and successful executor of the ideology that we’ve come to call Palestinianism.”

The ideology, she said, does not hide its goal of eradicating the existence of Israel “from the river to the sea.” 

Terms like “right of return” hold equally brutal meanings.

“You look at Palestinian Arab texts from the ’50s, the ’60s, they are very clear about the term,” she said. “They talk about ‘We will tear their hearts out of their bodies, their fingernails from their limbs.’ That’s why you have euphoria on Oct. 7 – euphoria across the people of Gaza, euphoria across the people of the West Bank, Palestinians and their collaborators around the world. The euphoria was not [because Palestinians were] breaking out of some open-air prison…. The euphoria was that they finally saw the moment that they had been groomed for, for decades.… Hamas executed Oct. 7 on behalf of Palestinianism, on behalf of the Palestinian people – for them and of them.”

That is the only way to understand what happened, she argued, or to understand how billions of dollars in international aid have resulted not in social progress but in a militarized terror regime with hundreds of kilometres of tunnels under schools, mosques, homes and kindergartens. 

“You can only do something like that among a supportive population, when you are intent on carrying out the vision of that population,” she said. “So, the enemy is not just Hamas. That’s too easy. The enemy is Palestinianism. And that ideology has to die so that Jews and Arabs can finally live.”

An ideology can indeed be killed, she argued. “In fact, it happens all the time. We all live in a world where ideologies are constantly killed and dying and replaced by others.”

A first step, Wilf contended, is rejecting what she calls “trauma determinism” – the idea that people who are collectively traumatized can only respond with violence and stubborn resistance. This manifests in the idea that Israel’s actions will only further radicalize Palestinians. “I don’t know that there is much further to radicalize,” she noted.

Trauma determinism is not real, she said – or, at least, it need not be. “Exhibit A: the Jewish people,” she said. But she also raised the examples of Nazi Germany and imperial Japan. “They suffered violence. The issue is not the violence,” she said. “The issue is what is the story that gets told. That’s why this moment is so important. Because, just like nothing succeeds like success, nothing fails like failure. People begin to run away from failure.”

To move on and embrace peace, she said, Palestinians, like Germans and Japanese before them, have to acknowledge defeat.

“Embracing defeat is not necessarily a bad thing,” she said. “And that process needs to happen. I’m not denying that there is ruin and devastation in Gaza. The question is, how is that ruin and devastation understood? Because, if the story is big, bad evil Israel did that to you and you are just innocent Gazan victims of Israel’s evil nature, then nothing will change. What needs to happen is something that has never happened in the last century of the conflict, which is a connection between cause and effect, action and consequences.” 

Palestinians, the broader Arab polity and the world need to understand that the ruin and devastation inflicted upon Gaza is the outcome of their ideology. Some other peoples in the region have awakened to this idea and begun to give up their fruitless hostility to Israel, Wilf said.

“It is always the mark of failed societies in crisis, looking to scapegoat, looking to find someone to blame, looking to divert attention from their failures,” she said. “It’s not a coincidence, therefore, that those countries in the Arab world who are trying to forge a modern vision, a forward-looking vision of what it means to be an Arab and Muslim, are the ones that are letting go of anti-Zionism and normalizing relations with Israel. This is the only vision forward. And I’m under no illusions. It remains a minority view in the Arab and Islamic world. But, for the first time ever, it exists, vocally.”

photo - Israeli commentator and former member of the Knesset Einat Wilf, right, was thanked after her presentation by Tracy Ames
Israeli commentator and former member of the Knesset Einat Wilf, right, was thanked after her presentation by Tracy Ames. (photo by Adele Lewin)

While they might not embrace the term themselves, Wilf suggests these parties are exhibiting what she calls “Arab Zionism” – the simple acknowledgement that Israel exists and has a right to do so. 

It is voices in the West who are most resistant to change, she said.

“The tragedy of this moment is that some in the Arab world are waking up from decades of anti-Zionism as a waste and a ruin, and seeking to have a different vision,” said Wilf. “You have so many here in the West rushing to fill the void and to essentially keep fueling the conflict so that the erasure of Israel can finally be achieved. That is the tragedy. It is also, of course, remarkably dangerous. Because what’s happening now in the West, as much as it pretends to be about the conflict, it’s not.”

It’s about something more insidious, she contended. What is portrayed as anti-Zionism has historically shown itself to be something baser.

“What happens to Jews when societies allow anti-Zionism to become institutionalized?” she asked. Everywhere that anti-Zionism rises to the level of being institutionalized or legislated, the environment turns hostile to Jewish life, she said.

“In the Arab world, how did they get rid of their Jews in the two decades when anti-Zionism was at its height? They never legislated against the Jews. They legislated against Zionists. Iraq, Egypt – the legislation was against Zionists,” she said. “But the way it works is that the Jews are charged with Zionism and no Jew – I know some really try hard but no Jew – will ever be able to disavow Zionism because, heaven forbid, they just celebrated Passover and said, ‘Next year in Jerusalem.’ And that’s how it works.” If such actions are not stopped, she said, “ultimately, no Jews are left.”

“This is what happened in the Arab world, in Iran, in the history of Europe, in the Soviet Union, in Venezuela and it’s happening on American campuses as we speak,” she contended.

Now, efforts are underway in Canada and elsewhere to codify “anti-Palestinian racism,” which Wilf dismisses as a prohibition against Zionism.

On the other hand, there is, she clarified, genuine anti-Palestinian racism. “It is the racism of refusing to listen to Palestinians and take them at their word,” she said. “There is a refusal to really acknowledge them as agents in history who know what they are doing and who actually have their own rational vision of no Jewish state.”

The future depends on how Palestinians and the world interpret the destruction that has taken place in Gaza. 

“We are facing a moment that has at once great peril but also great hope,” said Wilf. “Amazingly, so much rides on whether we will ensure that the ruin and destruction in Gaza will finally be associated as the consequence, the outcome, the effect of the Palestinian choice to pursue the always-destructive vision of no Jewish state, because, if they can finally be made to embrace defeat, and to begin the slow process [toward peace] then, at the end of the day, I can assure you that, if they become Arab Zionists, it would be better for everyone.”

Rabbi Andrew Rosenblatt welcomed the audience and thanked the Hayes Family Israel Initiative for funding Wilf’s visit, in memory of Dr. Arthur and Arlene Hayes z”l. 

Format ImagePosted on May 30, 2025May 28, 2025Author Pat JohnsonCategories LocalTags anti-Zionism, antisemitism, Arab Zionism, Einat Wilf, Hamas, Israel-Hamas war, Oct. 7, Palestinianism, Palestinians, politics
Israelis not that divided

Israelis not that divided

Dr. Einat Wilf and Mark Regev spoke at a Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs event Feb. 9.

Canadian Jews who don’t like the look of Israel’s new government should not withdraw from engagement with that country and its discourse, but get more involved, says Dr. Einat Wilf, a former Labour party member of the Knesset.

Leaders in the North American Jewish community are expressing concerns over the new government and aspects of its policy agenda, while others worry that the always-present fear of schisms between Israeli and Diaspora Jewry could be reaching a breaking point. But Wilf said this is a time for overseas Jews to act strategically to influence policies that reflect their priorities.

Wilf, who served in the Knesset from 2010 to 2013, is an author, businessperson and one-time foreign policy advisor to Shimon Peres. She was part of a panel convened by the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs Feb. 9. Wilf engaged with Mark Regev, who is chair of the Abba Eban Institute for Diplomacy and Foreign Relations at Reichman University and a former spokesperson and senior foreign affairs advisor to Binyamin Netanyahu. He also served as Israel’s ambassador to the United Kingdom. Yaron Deckel, the Jewish Agency for Israel’s director for Canada and a veteran Israeli journalist, moderated the event.

Wilf said it is up to Canadian Jews to decide how to respond to the political situation in Israel. “But my personal view is that this is perhaps the time for Jews outside Israel to fund more and channel money and efforts to things that have to do not with welfare but actually with how Israel is Jewish,” she said. “North American Jews, if they want Israel to be hospitable to their kind of Jewish practice, they need to make a stark choice.”

The Conservative and Reform movements in Israel are simply too small to be major players in this discussion and so the more practical camp with which Diaspora adherents of those denominations can partner to meet their goals is the secular movement, Wilf said. This is the most likely way to advance policies such as egalitarian prayer at the Kotel, liberal interpretations of identity for aliyah and reducing the powers of the chief rabbinate.

Both panelists attempted to dispel some conventional wisdom, including that Israeli society is divided, turning its back on liberalism and getting more and more religious.

“Israeli democracy, as it stands now, is more inclusive, more representative of the greater diversity of voices than it has been probably throughout its history,” said Wilf. That diversity, by its very inclusiveness, has opened the door to ideas that can be considered contrary to traditional progressive Israeli values, she argued. “That means that more non-liberal voices are represented than ever before.”

Regev concurred. The “good old days” of early Israeli democracy were, he said, “a one-party state run by the Labour Party.… It was a much more conformist society, it was difficult for gays, it was difficult for women, it was a society that was more closed, it was difficult for Mizrahim,” he said. “Today, I have no doubt if you look at the trajectory, Israel is more liberal, more pluralist, more open, more free than ever before.”

A couple of decades ago, Regev noted, if you wanted to go out for dinner in Jerusalem on a Friday night, you had to travel to east Jerusalem. “Now, in Jewish Jerusalem, you have all sorts of places you can go to,” he said. “The idea that Israel is becoming only more religious, more Haredi, more Orthodox is just not true.”

One of the areas where most Israelis agree, said Wilf and Regev, is on the Palestinian issue. After Yasser Arafat ended the peace process and started the Second Intifada, and his successor Mahmoud Abbas demonstrated no more conciliatory a tone, Israelis realized the ball was not in their court. All they can do is wait for a change of leadership on the Palestinian side, both said.

The fiercest divisions in Israeli society right now are over proposals to reform the judiciary, including allowing the Knesset to override Supreme Court decisions by a majority vote and to hand the power of judicial appointments to politicians.

Deckel noted that Canadian legalist Irwin Cotler has warned that the judicial overhaul would make Israel a flawed democracy and other Jewish leaders in North America have spoken up in ways that are rare or unprecedented against some of what the new government is advocating.

“Is there really a threat to Israeli democracy?” asked Regev. “I’m not so sure. I don’t believe there is. I believe Israeli democracy is strong. I believe we can debate the pros and cons of the different judicial reforms put on the table without having to say this is the end of democracy.”

Both commentators think fears of the new government are overblown, although Wilf has a caveat. She has studied past Netanyahu governments and concluded their bark is generally worse than their bite or, at least, that the “hysteria” with which they were met was not commensurate with the policies they enacted.

“All Netanyahu governments, especially the one of 2015, were received with complete hysteria and none of it materialized,” said Wilf. “Sometimes the exact opposite. Netanyahu turned out to be much more centrist, careful, generally very much eschewing violence and conflict and even bringing peace agreements.”

A difference now, said Wilf, is that Netanyahu is head of a more ideologically narrow government, where in the past he had built fairly broad coalitions.

“For Netanyahu, that was very comfortable,” Regev said. “Because, when you have a coalition partner to the left of you and a coalition partner to the right of you, that allows you to be the conductor of the orchestra, so to speak.”

Regev sees a danger in Diaspora Jews who disagree with events in Israel airing dirty laundry, but Wilf said that is the least of her concerns. No matter who is in charge or what policies they advance, overseas opponents will make the same case, she said. “They still would have argued that Israel is a settler-colonial, apartheid, genocidal, white European blah blah blah,” she said. “That’s how they work.”

Addressing the widespread spike in antisemitism, Regev sees a silver lining. “You could be very cynical and you could say some things don’t change. But something has changed,” he said. “Something very important has changed. Unlike my father when he was a child and the Jews were stateless and defenceless and knocking on people’s doors [saying] ‘Please let me in so they won’t kill me,’ today we can proudly say that, if something has changed, the Jews have changed. We have a state. We have a successful state. With all our problems, Israel is a very successful country, politically, economically, diplomatically, militarily. We can protect ourselves.”

Gail Adelson-Marcovitz, national chair of the board of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, opened the online event, which attracted more than 1,000 participants. “Many of us believe that Israel is a state of the totality of the Jewish people and not just its citizens,” she said. “While it is the citizens of Israel who elect their government, that choice has ramifications for many aspects of our partnership and specifically impacts Diaspora Jews. We feel that our interest must, at the very least, be heard, if not respected, particularly in those areas where we are impacted.”

Format ImagePosted on February 24, 2023February 23, 2023Author Pat JohnsonCategories Israel, LocalTags Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, CIJA, democracy, Diaspora, Einat Wilf, Gail Adelson-Marcovitz, Israel, Mark Regev, politics
“Right of return” a poison pill?

“Right of return” a poison pill?

Among Middle East observers, there has long been a view that the demand for a Palestinian “right of return” is a bargaining chip that would be negotiated away in a final status agreement, perhaps in exchange for a symbolic but small number of Palestinian refugees admitted to Israel and a substantial amount of money as compensation.

In a new book, two prominent Israeli progressives argue that this assumption is wrong, that the right of return is an unwavering demand from the Palestinian side and, as a result, represents a poison pill that guarantees no resolution to the conflict or to Palestinian statelessness.

“The Palestinian conception of themselves as ‘refugees from Palestine,’ and their demand to exercise a so-called right of return, reflect the Palestinians’ most profound beliefs about their relationship with the land and their willingness or lack thereof to share any part of it with Jews,” write Adi Schwartz and Einat Wilf in the book The War of Return: How Western Indulgence of the Palestinian Dream has Obstructed the Path to Peace (All Points Books, 2020).

Wilf, a former Labour member of the Knesset, and Schwartz, an academic and journalist for Ha’aretz, have undeniable left-wing credentials. But, while the Israeli left has long been associated with the idea of compromise and idealism, the authors contend that there is little room for any sort of resolution as long as Palestinians cling to the idea that five million or more of them have the right to citizenship in Israel. Part of the failure of successive peace plans, they write, stems from the inability of negotiators to recognize the Palestinians’ tenacity in holding fast on this core issue – and argue that Israelis need to recognize that truth.

“[D]ecades of shuttling, strong-arming the sides, and endless hours of negotiations came to naught because none of the diplomats or negotiators truly understood and dealt with the root causes of the conflict, choosing instead to turn away and focus on that which appeared easier,” they write.

The status of Palestinian refugees is unique in the world. They have their own international agency devoted to the issue: UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, while all other refugees fall under the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. In this sole instance, the definition of “refugee” has been amended to become an inheritable status, meaning that the several hundred thousand Palestinian Arabs dislocated by wars in 1948-1949 and 1967 have ballooned to more than five million – even though many or most of the original refugees have died and the vast majority of those seeking “return” have in fact never lived or set foot in the state they claim for their own.

While exponentially more people were made refugees in the same era – in Europe, in the Indian subcontinent and at least 800,000 Jews forced from Arab- and Muslim-majority lands across the Middle East and North Africa – Schwartz and Wilf argue that Palestinians view themselves as having experienced a unique injustice.

They quote Aref al-Aref, a Palestinian writer who was mayor of East Jerusalem under Jordanian rule in the 1950s: “We have been afflicted by a catastrophe, we the Arabs in general and the Palestinians in particular, during this period of time in a way in which we have not been subjected to catastrophe in centuries and in other periods of time.…” Another Palestinian scholar, in 1950, wrote: “It is the most terrible disaster befalling the Arabs and the Muslims in modern history.… It is a deep-rooted disaster, far-reaching and full of dangers. It is an evil growing by the day and by the hour.” Another writer compared it with the Muslims losing Spain in the Middle Ages.

This almost apocalyptic language precludes compromise on what Palestinians have been promised through the generations by their leaders, according to the book. And, while plenty of voices, including academics, activists and politicians, have argued that the right of return would not be such a terrible thing for Israel’s well-being, the authors provide plenty of evidence that the proposed migration of millions of Palestinian Arabs into Israel is perhaps less about justice for refugees than it is about doing to the country through demographics what the Arab world has been unable to do militarily.

“It is well known and understood that the Arabs, in demanding the return of the refugees to Palestine, mean their return as masters of the homeland and not as its slaves. With greater clarity, they mean the liquidation of the state of Israel,” said a senior Egyptian politician in 1949, at the beginning of the refugees’ long history.

As an article in a Lebanese newspaper put it, the Palestinians’ return would “create a large Arab majority that would serve as the most effective means of reviving the Arab character to Palestine while forming a powerful fifth column for the day of revenge and reckoning.” Arab League Secretary-General Azzam Pasha viewed the refugees’ return as making it possible for “an irregular army that would be in a position to cause a great deal of inconvenience to the Jews by acts of sabotage.”

To ensure that the plan was not foiled, no matter how long it took to reach fruition, a now-seven-decade-old scheme was hatched to prevent Palestinian refugees in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and elsewhere from putting down roots, argue the authors.

“The rehabilitation of the refugees in Arab countries would have meant the end of the war, but that was not what the Arabs wanted,” they write. While the Palestinians were made pawns of the Arab League’s campaign of “denormalization” against Israel, the book portrays most refugees as at least semi-willing players. Attempts to find resolutions to their statelessness have been met with outrage. When Canada’s foreign minister suggested some Palestinian refugees might find a permanent home in Canada, he was burned in effigy in Nablus.

UNRWA, which was presumably begun with the best of intentions, has been consumed by politics and corruption and usurped into what the authors contend is effectively a globally funded branch of the Palestinian liberation movement. Agency-funded textbooks used in Palestinian schools have been shown for decades to inculcate Jew-hatred, venerate terrorists and incite violence. Nevertheless, Palestinians receive through UNRWA among the most per capita humanitarian aid in the world and live a life of which most refugees – and the poor in most Arab countries – can only dream.

From the start, UNRWA’s first annual report, in 1951, noted that many or most refugees were enjoying a better way of life than they had before 1948, receiving universal free education and quality healthcare. The UNRWA schools, now with more than three generations of alumni, have created a uniquely well-educated population of refugees, but, along with reading, writing and arithmetic, the curriculum has created “an embittered, angry and frustrated generation, raised on myths about ethnic cleansing by the Jews, the perfidy of Arab leaders, a sense of victimhood and a refusal to take responsibility for the results of the Palestinians actions in the years and months before Israel’s birth and thereafter,” Wilf and Schwartz write.

The book does not paint an optimistic picture. Western diplomats, peacemakers and politicians refuse to recognize the Palestinian demand of return seriously and continue to believe it can be negotiated away.

“If return were truly just a bargaining chip,” write the authors, “it could have and would have been bargained long ago for a Palestinian state. Rather, it is a Palestinian state that is repeatedly bargained away in order to keep fighting for return.”

There are plenty of issues to discuss – if there were negotiations occurring – but, they argue, the entire Palestinian case rests on the thing Israel must reject.

“The one article that Israel could absolutely not agree to, as it entailed its very suicide, was the one without which the conflict would never end,” write Schwartz and Wilf.

 

Format ImagePosted on September 25, 2020September 23, 2020Author Pat JohnsonCategories BooksTags Adi Schwartz, conflcit, diplomacy, Einat Wilf, Israel, Palestine, peace, politics, right of return
Proudly powered by WordPress