Following those Palestinians who have compared the current war in Gaza to the Nakba (Arabic for catastrophe) their forbears suffered in 1948, Michael Milshtein observes some similarities that they ignore:

In 1948, the [Palestinian] leadership was the first to flee; today, it hides underground, disconnected from public discourse. Moreover, there remains a persistent [lack of] a coherent national agenda and realistic goals, often replaced by illusions and slogans. . . . The inclination toward victimhood, complete dependency on the international community, and evasion of responsibility and self-criticism have supplanted a viable national strategy. . . . Palestinians describe a tragic historical cycle imposed upon them, yet they avoid acknowledging that this cycle results from strategic choices made by both the public and their leaders.

What Milshtein outlines here is the cycle of “ecstasy and amnesia” Shany Mor has described in Mosaic. Milshtein looks at what lies behind this persistent amnesia of past failures:

Seventy-six years after the 1948 Nakba, there exists a Palestinian national identity, but a significant question lingers regarding the existence of a Palestinian civil society. This collective has not yet protested the unprecedented disaster inflicted upon it by Hamas, and large parts of it, as indicated by Palestinian public opinion polls, support the October 7 attack, back Hamas, and refuse to believe Palestinians committed war crimes. This reflects a long-standing dichotomy: glorifying violent attacks often cloaked in heroic terms of “resistance” and “steadfastness,” while simultaneously retreating into victimhood.

Under these circumstances, dialogue between Israel and the Palestinians is almost impossible, as it requires a conversation “between a community specializing in self-flagellation” and another that adheres “to a monolithic and dichotomous narrative of battle between angels and demons.”

Yesterday, the Iranian foreign minister flew to Geneva to meet with European diplomats. President Trump, meanwhile, indicated that cease-fire negotiations might soon begin with Iran, which would presumably involve Tehran agreeing to make concessions regarding its nuclear program, while Washington pressures Israel to halt its military activities. According to Israeli media, Iran already began putting out feelers to the U.S. earlier this week. Aviram Bellaishe considers the purpose of these overtures:

The regime’s request to return to negotiations stems from the principle of deception and delay that has guided it for decades. Iran wants to extricate itself from a situation of total destruction of its nuclear facilities. It understands that to save the nuclear program, it must stop at a point that would allow it to return to it in the shortest possible time. So long as the negotiation process leads to halting strikes on its military capabilities and preventing the destruction of the nuclear program, and enables the transfer of enriched uranium to a safe location, it can simultaneously create the two tracks in which it specializes—a false facade of negotiations alongside a hidden nuclear race.