The more one learns about the actual nature of Israel’s current war, and the more one learns about the real horrors, ethnic cleansing, and war crimes of the Assad regime, the more absurd the accusations against the Jewish state seem. Cole Aronson, trying to make sense of these perverse libels, turns to one of the 20th century’s great Jewish writers:

Someone must have been telling lies. When he’s arrested at the beginning of Franz Kafka’s The Trial, Joseph K. thinks first of his innocence. To be innocent is to be innocent of some crime, but the court that’s ordered K.’s arrest never says what crime K. has committed. K. seems to be guilty simply—there are no reports or accusations for him to expose as lies. Because the court “is attracted to guilt,” it will wait for K. wherever he goes. And K.’s guilt for doing nothing cannot be remedied by his doing anything now. . . . K.’s guilt is reason-blind and indelible, an inscrutable scrutiny.

For instance, in Amnesty International’s recent bill of particulars regarding Israel, Israel is considered guilty of “genocide” for evacuating Palestinian civilians from areas where it plans to engage in intense fighting:

To move Palestinians was an act of genocide. But not to move the Palestinians would’ve resulted in more Palestinian deaths. . . . Since October 7, 2023, Amnesty International and its progressive allies in the West have been damning Israel for one thing and for its opposite. For evacuating Palestinians and for not evacuating Palestinians. For protecting itself and for not protecting itself. For not supplying aid to Gaza, and for prolonging the war in Gaza (itself the partial result of Hamas looting the aid Israel has facilitated). For the predicament of the hostages, and for the security measures—a fence, a partial blockade—that limited the number of hostages to a few hundred as opposed to a few thousand.

They are the real-life court of Kafka’s Trial—with law degrees from Harvard, subscriptions to the New Yorker, and opinions from Tehran.

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.