Released in Ukraine this summer, the film Dovbush has as its title character a semi-legendary, Robin Hood-like figure who lived in 18th-century Ukraine. The film, apparently drawing on Jewish legends, portrays Dovbush encountering Israel ben Eliezer—the founder of Hasidism, known as the Ba’al Shem Tov (“good master of the Name”) or Besht—a contemporary of Dovbush who lived in the same area of Ukraine. The Ba’al Shem Tov is played by Luzer Twersky, an actor and former Hasid who often plays religious Jewish characters. Jon Kalish writes:

As the Besht, Twersky gets less than five minutes of screen time in the nearly two-hour film—he appears in three scenes. In the first, he encounters Dovbush who is in chains and assures the Besht, who had been submerging himself in a stream that served as a mikveh, that he’s not a thief. “Who could ever think that?” replies the Besht.

Dovbush asks the Besht if he is alone. “One is never alone,” the Besht replies. “But other than me, there is no one else here.”

If there’s one lesson to be learned from the history of the Israel-Arab conflict, it’s never to be confident that an end is in sight. Ehud Yaari nevertheless—and with all due caution—points to some noteworthy developments:

The absolute primacy of “armed struggle” in Palestinian discourse has discouraged any serious attempt to discuss or plan for a future Palestinian state. Palestinian political literature is devoid of any substantial debate over what kind of a state they aspire to create. What would be its economic, foreign, and social policies?

One significant exception was a seminar held by Hamas in Gaza—under the auspices of the late Yahya Sinwar—prior to October 7, 2023. The main focus of what was described as a brainstorming session was the question of how to deal with the Jews in the land to be liberated. A broad consensus between the participants was reached that most Israeli Jews should be eradicated or expelled while those contributing to Israel’s success in high tech and other critical domains would be forced to serve the new Palestinian authorities.

Yet, the ongoing aftershocks from the ongoing war in Gaza are posing questions among Palestinians concerning the viability of armed struggle. So far this trend is reflected mainly in stormy exchanges on social-media platforms and internal controversies within Hamas. There is mounting criticism leveled at the late Mohammad Deif and Yahya Sinwar for embarking upon an uncoordinated offensive that is resulting in a “Second Nakba”—a repeat of the defeat and mass displacement caused by launching the war in 1948.

To be sure, “armed struggle” is still being preached daily to the Palestinian communities by Iran and Iranian proxies, and at least half the Palestinian public—according to various polls—believe it remains indispensable. But doubts are being heard. We may be reaching a point where the Palestinians will feel compelled to make a choice between the road which led to past failures and an attempt to chart a new route. It will certainly require time and is bound to cause fractures and divisions, perhaps even a violent split, among the Palestinians.