While local collaboration with the Nazis in the execution of the Holocaust happened throughout Europe, the case of Romania is unique. Poles, Ukrainians, and other East Europeans served as guards in death camps and even participated in the mass-slaughter of Jews. Dutch bureaucrats and French and Hungarian policemen helped round up Jews for slave labor and to be shipped to Auschwitz. But Romania, ruled at the time by a fascist dictator named Ion Antonescu, was the only country whose armed forces, as such, pursued a policy of extermination—more or less independent of the Nazis—with some 380,000 victims. Yet, for complex reasons, many more Romanian Jews survived, giving the country an excuse to downplay its ugly history.

A new law has changed that, placing Holocaust education on the national curriculum. Amanda Coakley writes:

The new course, called “The Holocaust and Jewish History,” was passed into law in November 2021 after the Romanian lawmaker Silviu Vexler, who is Jewish, introduced it. All parties supported it except the far-right Alliance for the Union of Romanians (AUR), which argued that the Holocaust in Romania was a “minor topic” and that focusing on it would undermine the quality of students’ education. The party also claimed that there were no longer any serious cases of anti-Semitism in Romania, a statement rebuffed by the Elie Wiesel National Institute for Studying the Holocaust in Romania, which has issued annual reports concerning the anti-Jewish rhetoric that continues to surface around the country.

In recent years, vandals have upturned Jewish gravestones and defaced the childhood home of Romanian-born Wiesel, a Nobel laureate and survivor of the Auschwitz concentration camp.

Romania’s role in the Holocaust was mostly ignored under the Communist regime of Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej, which began in 1947. Under the 1965–89 leadership of Nicolae Ceausescu, another Communist, Romanians were told that the wartime dictator Marshal Ion Antonescu saved the country’s Jewish population by stopping death-camp deportations toward the end of World War II. This was selective picking of history.

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.