Connect with us

News

Yuval Noah Harari: Is there a way out of the Israeli-Palestinian trap?

Published

on

Yuval Noah Harari: Is there a way out of the Israeli-Palestinian trap?

The writer is a historian, philosopher and author

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is fuelled by the mutual horror of destruction. Each side fears the other wishes to kill or expel it, and terminate its existence as a national collective. Unfortunately, these are not irrational fears born out of paranoia, but reasonable fears based on recent historical memories and a relatively sound analysis of the other side’s intentions. 

The founding event of modern Palestinian identity is the Nakba of 1948, when the nascent state of Israel destroyed the chance of establishing a Palestinian state, and drove about 750,000 Palestinians out from their ancestral homes. In the following decades, Palestinians experienced repeated massacres and expulsions at the hands of Israelis and other regional powers. In 1982, for example, between 800 and 3,000 were massacred in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps by a Lebanese Christian militia, allied with Israel, and in 1991 about 300,000 were expelled from Kuwait.

The Palestinian fear of being killed or displaced is not just the result of such historical memories. It is an experience accompanying every moment of their lives. Each and every Palestinian in the occupied Palestinian territories knows that they could any day be killed, imprisoned or driven from their land by Israeli settlers or security forces. 

When Palestinians analyse the intentions of Israelis, they conclude that if not for the international community, there is a high probability that Israel will opt to expel most or all of them from the land between the Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea and establish a country only for Jews. Over the years, numerous Israeli politicians and parties — including Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud — have expressed hopes of creating “Greater Israel”, with Palestinians dispossessed, expelled or reduced to serf status. Even at the height of the Oslo peace process in the 1990s, Israel looked askance at the prospect of a viable Palestinian state. Instead, it continued to expand its settlements in the West Bank, indicating its abiding wish to dispossess Palestinians of every part of the land. 

Advertisement

The current war has confirmed Palestinians’ deepest fears. After the Hamas attack on October 7 2023, calls for the utter destruction of the Gaza Strip and their mass killing and expulsion have become routine in the Israeli media and among some members of Israel’s ruling coalition. On October 7, the deputy Speaker of parliament, Nissim Vaturi, tweeted “Now we all have one common goal — erasing the Gaza Strip from the face of the earth.” On November 1, Israel’s minister of heritage, Amichai Eliyahu, posted “The North of the Gaza Strip, more beautiful than ever. Everything is blown up and flattened, simply a pleasure for the eyes.” And on November 11, Israel’s minister of agriculture, Avi Dichter, said that “we are now actually rolling out the Gaza Nakba”.

If it wasn’t for Egyptian resistance and international pressure, it is not unreasonable to believe that Israel would have attempted to drive the Palestinian population of the Gaza Strip into the Sinai desert. As it is, according to Palestinian health officials, Israeli forces have so far killed more than 31,000, including combatants but largely civilians, and have forced more than 85 per cent of the civilian population of the Gaza Strip — almost 2mn people — out of their homes. 


Israelis carry their own historical traumas. The founding event of modern Jewish and Israeli identity is the Holocaust, when the Nazis exterminated about 6mn Jews, and wiped out most of Europe’s Jewish communities. Then in 1948, the Palestinians and their Arab allies made a concerted effort to annihilate the nascent state of Israel, and to kill or expel all its Jewish inhabitants. In the wake of their defeat and subsequent Arab defeats in the 1956 and 1967 wars, Arab countries took revenge by destroying their own defenceless Jewish communities. About 800,000 Jews were driven out of their ancestral homes in countries such as Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Libya. At least half of Israeli Jews are the descendants of these Middle Eastern refugees.

Jewish fears of murder and expulsion are not just the outcome of such historical memories. They are also lived experiences that constitute part of the daily routines of Israelis. Each and every Israeli knows that they personally might be murdered or abducted any day by Palestinian or Islamist terrorists, whether in their homes or while travelling anywhere in the world.

When Israelis analyse the intentions of Palestinians, they conclude that if they are ever given the chance, Palestinians will probably kill or expel the 7mn Jews currently living between the Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea. Palestinian leaders and their allies from Tehran to New York have repeatedly argued that the Jewish presence in the land between the river and the sea is a colonial injustice that sooner or later must be “made right”. 

Advertisement

Some may argue that “righting the injustice” doesn’t mean killing or expelling all Israeli Jews, but rather establishing a democratic Palestinian state in which Jews will be welcomed as citizens. However, Israelis find this extremely difficult to believe, especially given the absence of any lasting Arab democracies and the fate of the Jewish communities in countries like Egypt and Iraq.

Jews arrived on the banks of the Nile and Euphrates at least 1,000 years before the Arabs conquered Egypt and Iraq in the 7th century CE. No one could argue that the Jewish communities of Cairo or Baghdad were a recent colonialist implant. Yet after 1948 these communities were totally wiped out. There are virtually none left in any Arab country, other than the 2,000 Jews of Morocco and the 1,000 of Tunisia. Considering the recent violent history of Jews and Arabs, what basis is there to believe that Jewish communities will be able to survive under Palestinian rule? 

The current war has confirmed Israelis’ deepest fears. After Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip, Hamas and other militants turned it into an armed base to attack Israel. On October 7, Hamas terrorists killed, raped and took hostage more than 1,000 Israeli civilians. Entire communities were systematically destroyed, and hundreds of thousands of Israelis had to flee their homes. If any Jews harboured hopes that they could live in a Palestinian state, what happened to Jewish villages such as Be’eri and Kfar Aza and to Nova music festival attendees proved that Jewish communities cannot survive under Palestinian rule for even a single day. 

Reactions to the massacre in the Muslim world and elsewhere fed Israeli fears of extermination. Even before Israel began its bombardment and invasion of Gaza, numerous voices justified and even celebrated the murder and abduction of Israeli civilians as a step towards righting historical injustices. Every time demonstrators in London or New York chant “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”, Israelis conclude that “they really do want to exterminate us”. Of course, Hamas by itself lacks the military capabilities to defeat and destroy Israel. But the war has demonstrated that an alliance of powerful regional forces that back it, including Hizbollah, the Houthis and Iran, poses an existential threat to Israel.


It would be wrong to equate the situation of Israelis and Palestinians. They have different histories, live under different conditions and face different threats. The point this article makes is only that both have good reasons to believe that the other side wishes to kill or expel all of them. They consequently see each other not just as run-of-the-mill enemies, but as an existential threat constantly hovering overhead. Unsurprisingly, both sides wish to remove this. However, the Israeli wish to remove the Palestinian existential threat poses an existential threat to the Palestinians — and vice versa. For the only way to completely remove it seems to be to get rid of the other side. 

Advertisement

The tragedy of this conflict is that the problem arises not from unjustified paranoia, but rather from a sound analysis of the situation, and from each side knowing only too well its own intentions and fantasies. When Israelis and Palestinians take a good look at their own dark wishes, they conclude that the other has ample reason to fear and hate them. It is a devilish logic. Every side says to itself: “Given what we wish to do to them, it makes sense that they will want to get rid of us — which is precisely why we have no choice but to get rid of them first.” 

Is there a way out of this trap? Ideally, each side should give up its fantasy of getting rid of the other. A peaceful solution to the conflict is technically feasible. There is enough land between the Jordan and Mediterranean to build houses, schools, roads and hospitals for everyone. But it can be realised only if each side can honestly say that, even if it had unlimited power and zero restrictions, it would not wish to expel the other. “No matter what injustices they committed against us and what threats they still pose, we nevertheless respect their right to live dignified lives in their country of birth.” Such a profound change in intentions is bound to manifest itself in action, and eventually ease the fear and hatred, creating space for genuine peace. 

Of course, accomplishing such a change is extremely hard. But it is not impossible. There are already numerous individuals on both sides who wish well for the other. If their number increases, eventually it should change collective policies. There is also one important group in the region that collectively feels a part of both sides, and doesn’t wish to see either disappear: the close to 2mn Arab citizens of Israel, who are usually referred to as either Arab Israelis or Palestinian Israelis.

When Hamas launched its attack, it hoped these Palestinian-Israelis would rise up against their Jewish neighbours. Many Jews were terrified that this was indeed about to happen. In fact, on the day of the massacre, numerous Arab citizens rushed to help their Jewish neighbours. Some were even murdered by Hamas for doing so. For example, Abed al-Rahman Alnasarah of Kuseife was murdered while trying to rescue survivors from the Nova festival, and Awad Darawshe of Iksal was killed while taking care of injured victims. 

Every day since, despite hostility from many Jews including government ministers, Arab-Israelis have gone on serving in Israeli institutions from hospitals to government offices. The two most prominent Palestinian-Israeli politicians, Ayman Odeh of the Hadash party and Mansour Abbas of the Islamist United Arab List party, roundly condemned the massacre and called on all sides to lay down their arms and seek peace. Jews should know by now that Arab-Israelis do not fantasise about the day when they can finally kill or expel all Jews living between the Jordan and the Mediterranean.  

Advertisement

No matter how hard it is for the rest of us to change our intentions, the good news is that this is something each side — even each person — is capable of achieving by themselves. We have little control over the intentions of others, but we should be able to change our own minds. Even readers who are neither Israeli nor Palestinian can contemplate whether they wish well for both sides, or whether they cherish the hope that one of these groups would simply disappear from the face of the Earth. 

News

Video: Mamdani Allies Sweep New York Primaries

Published

on

Video: Mamdani Allies Sweep New York Primaries

new video loaded: Mamdani Allies Sweep New York Primaries

transcript

transcript

Mamdani Allies Sweep New York Primaries

Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s progressive coalition had a big night on Tuesday. Brad Lander, Darializa Avila Chevalier and Claire Valdez won their Democratic House primaries.

“I see a New York that we can all afford. I see a New York that truly invests in its babies, not bombs.” Reporter: “What’s the first thing you’re looking forward to doing in Congress?” “Well, tomorrow — thank you — I mean, tomorrow morning, you know, I’m going to be back at 26 Federal Plaza doing court watching, and we want to carry that into Congress as well.”

Advertisement
Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s progressive coalition had a big night on Tuesday. Brad Lander, Darializa Avila Chevalier and Claire Valdez won their Democratic House primaries.

By Julie Yoon

June 24, 2026

Continue Reading

News

Appeals court allows Trump administration expanded use of speedy deportations

Published

on

Appeals court allows Trump administration expanded use of speedy deportations

A massive 826,780-square-foot warehouse sits illuminated Feb. 12, 2026, in the El Paso suburb of Socorro, Texas, that was recently purchased by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for $122.8 million.

Morgan Lee/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Morgan Lee/AP

A federal appeals court on Tuesday allowed the Trump administration to resume carrying out speedy deportations of undocumented migrants throughout the United States, not just near the border.

A divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit threw out a lower court decision that temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s expanded use of expedited removal. The ruling was a big victory for the Republican administration, which views the expansion of so-called expedited removal as a key tool for carrying out its mass deportation policy.

Expedited removal — quick deportation without a chance to appear before a judge — has previously been applied to migrants arriving by sea or caught at or near the border shortly after crossing.

Advertisement

In January, Trump expanded its use to undocumented migrants all over the United States. Immigration agents began whisking migrants away from courthouses where they had gone for immigration proceedings and then removing them from the country within days.

“The Trump administration’s push for fast-track deportations will subject people to an unfair and error-prone system,” Anand Balakrishnan, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said in a statement.

Balakrishnan represented plaintiffs in arguments before the appellate panel and said its ruling “undermines the fundamental principle that people receive due process when the government seeks to deport them.”

DC Circuit Judge Justin R. Walker, one of the judges on the panel, said the plaintiffs had not shown the expanded use of expedited removal violated due process rights. Immigrants received notice of removal proceedings and were given a chance to respond, he wrote in his opinion.

Walker and the second judge in the majority, Neomi Rao, were appointed by Trump. The third judge on the panel was appointed by President Barack Obama, a Democrat.

Advertisement

Walker said there was no requirement that the administration inform immigrants that they can avoid expedited removal if they can show they have been in the United States for more than two years.

Continue Reading

News

ODNI under Pulte fires 6 staff, sends 45 back to home agencies

Published

on

ODNI under Pulte fires 6 staff, sends 45 back to home agencies

Just over 50 career and political intelligence staff at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence have been removed from their roles since Bill Pulte became the agency’s acting director, Friday.

Six career and political intelligence staff were terminated and 45 were sent back to their home agencies, according to three sources familiar with the personnel moves.

Pulte has been asking deputies and other directors for suggestions about cuts. Some of the ODNI deputies pushed for more cuts, but Pulte said that the 51 was enough for now, one of the sources said.

One source characterized the cuts as thoughtful and methodical. No staffers have been removed from the counterterrorism group.

No further firings are planned for now, two of the sources said.

Advertisement

The cuts follow hundreds of staff reductions last year by former Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who stepped down last week. Last year’s planned downsizing sought to bring the office’s headcount from 2,000 to around 1,300.

President Trump has pushed for further cuts, directing Pulte to “execute the immediate and needed downsizing of the office” in a Truth Social post earlier this month.

The office is charged with overseeing the country’s intelligence agencies and helping them coordinate with each other. It was created in response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, which investigators widely believe was preceded by a failure of intelligence agencies to share information. 

Since then, Gabbard and some lawmakers have argued the ODNI has become bloated and has added more bureaucracy to the intelligence community — worsening a problem it was created in part to resolve. 

Republican Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, said earlier this month the office has “grown far beyond its original mandate.”  Many of the office’s staff hail from other intelligence agencies but have been detailed to ODNI, and Cotton argued large numbers of them should be returned to their “home agencies.”

Advertisement

Sen. Mark Warner and Rep. Jim Himes, the top Democrats on the Senate and House intelligence panels, warned Pulte against making large-scale staff cuts, calling it an inappropriate course of action for an acting official without national security experience.

“While there is room to consider responsible reductions to ODNI’s workforce, any large cuts would follow on a substantial downsizing that has already occurred in 2025 and risk jeopardizing the mission of an organization explicitly created after 9/11 to prevent any future such terrorist attack,” the two Democrats wrote in a joint statement.

After Gabbard announced in May that she would resign from the post, Mr. Trump said he would install Pulte, a housing finance official, as acting director of national intelligence. He later nominated Jay Clayton, the top federal prosecutor in Manhattan, to serve as Senate-confirmed director.

Mr. Trump’s pick for acting director of national intelligence, who assumed the role on Friday, has sparked intense pushback in Congress. Democrats, and some Republicans, questioned the selection due to his lack of national security experience. 

Democratic Rep. Jason Crow of Colorado said Sunday he’s worried that “Americans are at risk” with Pulte serving as DNI “because we have someone who’s incompetent at the head of this agency,” in an interview on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan.”

Advertisement

In addition to Pulte’s lack of national security experience, Democrats have railed against the pick for his role in investigations into Mr. Trump’s political foes. Crow, who serves on the House Intelligence Committee, said he’s “obviously concerned that this is somebody who’s a political attack dog, and his single biggest qualification is that he’s loyal to Donald Trump and is willing to go after Donald Trump’s enemies.” But he said more immediately, he’s concerned about Americans’ safety.

“This is a really important position. This sits atop our intelligence agencies, and by law, Congress mandated that this person have significant intelligence experience because they have to make sure that we’re keeping Americans safe, which is not what Bill Pulte is capable of doing,” Crow said. 

Since Pulte’s selection, Democrats have declined to extend Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which grants intelligence agencies broad authority to spy on overseas targets, causing the legal provision to expire earlier this month

And as Senate GOP leaders tried to bring an end to the impasse by moving to quickly confirm Clayton as permanent director of national intelligence, the president abruptly called for Clayton’s confirmation hearing to be canceled last week.

Talks on extending FISA Section 702 were already strained, with some members of both parties pushing for stricter guardrails and arguing the program can scoop up Americans’ communications without a warrant. Intelligence officials say the program is essential to national security.

Advertisement

Asked whether Democrats have miscalculated, Crow said “not at all.”

“I know how important it is, but I’m unwilling to trade Americans’ constitutional rights, privacy and essential civil liberties for temporary extension to this program,” Crow said.

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said on “Face the Nation” that “any Democrat that shuts down FISA at a time of great peril for the United States is making a huge mistake.”

“We’re playing with fire here, no matter what side does it,” Graham said. “America needs FISA up and running.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending