In 2010, Israeli archaeologists uncovered a stone tablet in the oldest part of Jerusalem, which they believe dates to the middle of the 2nd millennium BCE. Gershon Galil, a professor at the University of Haifa, recently announced that he deciphered writing on the tablet in an ancient language related to Hebrew. According to Galil, the inscription contains a curse that was likely the work of “sophisticated magicians” who held “voodoo ceremonies.” Christopher Rollston, a leading authority on ancient Semitic inscriptions, is skeptical:

I am far from convinced that this is an “inscription.” In fact, one could make an entirely plausible case that these are not letters but repetitive decorative motifs and striations.

Here is Galil’s translation of it: “Cursed, cursed, you will surely die; Cursed, cursed, you will surely die; Governor of the City, you will surely die; Cursed, you will surely die; Cursed, you will surely die; Cursed, you will surely die.”

Although it is perhaps possible that there is some sort of “inscription” here, these readings and translation of Galil’s are not at all convincing. . . . But Galil’s assertion about this putative inscription’s importance pales in comparison with some of the rest of his claims.

According to Galil, “the new inscription proves that Jerusalem was not only a fortified city, but also a very important cultural and cultic center.” I too believe that Jerusalem was an important center at this time, and I believe that Jerusalem was fortified during the 2nd millennium BCE (the period from which this “inscription” putatively hails). However, according to Galil’s own readings, this inscription does not mention any city or its fortifications! So . . . even if someone were to embrace Galil’s readings, the “inscription” cannot carry the freight with which he is saddling it.

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.