During the Israel-Palestinian negotiations at Camp David in 2000, Israel’s then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak came to then-President Bill Clinton with an offer for the creation of a Palestinian state, complete with many concessions on what seemed to be key points of contention. Delighted at having finally achieved a breakthrough, Clinton brought the offer to Yasir Arafat—who promptly rejected it, refusing even to make a counteroffer or to list for the horrified American president his objections to the proposal. As this scene has played out time and again over the decades, Ran Baratz suggests that attempts at peacemaking are based on faulty assumptions:

[Peace] talks always fail because the Palestinians are not interested in negotiating a permanent agreement. [Rejecting such agreements] is not a negotiation tactic that fails each time, but the exact opposite: it is a successful strategy of abstention. . . . If this theory sounds strange, it is only because we have become accustomed not only to the idea that everyone always prefers a peace treaty but also to the paradigm that is rooted in [so-called] “missed historical opportunities.”

The truth is that when there is joint will to reach an agreement, there is no need for unique “historical opportunities.” But when there is no such will, there is only an illusion of opportunities. The bitter joke that “the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity” is completely illogical. Since the Palestinians don’t want the end that these “opportunities” present, for them these are not opportunities at all—more like historical traps. That is why they need to be avoided rather than taken advantage of. . . .

If President Trump [is interested in resuming the peace process], I would ask him to perform a simple test: before he commits to negotiations, he should ask the Palestinians for their peace plan—the Israelis’ he has long had. If he receives one, by all means, try another round of negotiations. But if the Palestinians send him—as Arafat used to say—“to drink Gaza’s seawater,” it’s a sign that nothing has changed and failure is looming on the horizon.

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.