So, I've been reluctant on the show to

talk too much about imagined solutions

for the Israeli Palestinian conflict. I

don't think any of the underlying

conditions for political solution are

present.

>> 19 new settlements in the occupied West

Bank.

>> More than 81% of Gaza's buildings are at

least partially damaged.

>> So many other Palestinian families are

living [music] with the threat of

demolition.

>> We're in a pre-olutionary space. And I

worry about it as a form of escapism.

[music] It's more comfortable to debate

two-state models or one-state imaginings

rather than confront the realities of

what is happening right now. But the

other problem, the other reason I I have

kind of backed off of these

conversations is that the old solutions

don't fit the present reality. I don't

see how a two-state solution is still

possible [music] given the number and

size of Jewish settlements in the West

Bank. They're not going away. [music] or

the insistence on a right of return for

Palestinians. I don't think a one-state

solution is plausible or likely. The

Jewish people in Israel and around it,

they want self-determination and

sovereignty. So too do the Palestinians.

Neither side, given their history, is

going to give the other willingly that

kind of power. But a number of people,

people I trust, have written to me

saying, I should look at the Landforall

plan. Land for All was founded in 2012

by a group of Israelis and Palestinians.

And it's attempting something different,

something I find in some ways beautiful.

Not a two-state model of separation, not

a one-state model of unification, but

this confederation model that centers

both people's connections to the land

and tries to combine the free movement

of people with separated political

entities. In this model, you would have

an Israel and a Palestine. [music] There

would be free movement, but political

separation. The borders would be open,

but [music] they say hopefully secure.

There's a lot to unpack about all this.

I have a lot of questions about it. I

would describe my own thinking [music]

here as intrigued, not convinced. But I

do think it is worth considering a new

political vision, even I think we're far

from the conditions that might make one

possible. I mean, if you don't have any

[music] idea of where you're going, how

do you get there? Ruah Hardal is a

Palestinian citizen of Israel who

received her doctorate in political

science from the University of Hanover

in Germany. My Pundak is an Israeli

lawyer, activist, and social

entrepreneur. Her father Ron Pundock was

an Israeli historian who played an

important role in the Oso peace process

in the 1990s. They're [music] the

co-directors of land for all. And so I

wanted to ask them both about the plan

but also about the politics and [music]

questions and social forces that have

undermined every other plan. As always,

my email esraclans show my times.com.

[music]

Rua hardall my pundock, welcome to the

show.

>> Thank you so much. Thank you.

>> So, I think that people listening are

familiar with the two-state solution

concept uh an Israel and a Palestine

separated and side by side. People have

heard ideas for a single state where you

would have uh people throughout the

territory, throughout the land all

voting within the same political system.

I don't think that they tend to be as

familiar with what you're offering this

confederation model. So Mai, let me

begin with you. How does this differ

from the two-state solution that has

been pursued for so long? So first of

all let me say we are offering what we

call a new vision but in that new vision

it is still based on two sovereign

independent states right Israel and

Palestine [sighs and gasps]

the two-state solution the classic

version of it was based on a paradigm of

segregation and separation

and we are moving away from that and

offering a model that is based not on

the zero sum game but rather on

acknowledging two very important

components of the conflict. Number one,

both Israelis and Palestinians have an

immense psychological, social connection

and sense of belonging to the entire

homeland from the river to the sea.

That's a fact.

Number two, the intertwined reality on

the ground. Meaning that today Israel

Palestine in a way is already shared.

The intertwined reality is everywhere we

look. And so the model says yes

sovereignity yes nation states yes

identity yes borders and there's another

layer to that of a shared mechanism of

shared institutions that take care of

things that have to be taken care of

jointly. So there's a human rights court

and there are cooperation around economy

and there is you know climate challenges

are dealt with together because you

can't deal with these things separately

but also because it's a mechanism to

ensure a sustainable peace. So that that

word shared is important in your vision

and your father was one of the

negotiators at Oslo, spent his life

working on the two-state solution

paradigm. And that paradigm is built on

the idea of security through separation,

at least on the Jewish side, that if we

can just separate, everybody can live in

peace, everybody can leave each other

alone.

>> Yeah.

What led you to move away from that

vision and and towards this idea that

peace doesn't come through separation.

It comes through a shared set of

institutions and interests.

>> Yeah. [sighs and gasps]

Well,

I would say two main things. The first

one was that I found myself um

advocating for the two-state solution

for many many years. I was um doing much

more anti-occupation work. I wasn't

really interested in solutions. I kind

of we kept that separate um from each

other. But

at a certain point and this was um after

my father passed away and I think that I

you know that was part of my reckoning

process of of grief you know of just

coming to terms with the fact that I've

been fighting for the two-state solution

but at a certain point I started feeling

that this model is crumbling beneath my

between my fingers and I can't gra I

don't believe in it anymore. The reality

is telling me something else. Meeting

Palestinian friends are telling me

something else. Meeting the

international community, I'm learning

something else. Be living in Israel, I'm

learning something else. And so I'm, you

know, there advocating for the two-state

solutions as an activist, but everywhere

I'm hearing the two-state solutions

dead. It's impossible.

And at the same time in Israel, this

idea of peace, of negotiations, of

two-state solution is becoming not

relevant in the public discourse. Like

there is no conversation about this. And

so in 2018, I had my first son and we

were living a couple of years in the

states and coming back to Israel. Um, no

one was talking about a future for my

child, about security, about safety,

about vision, about horizon, about hope.

No one was telling me what we're

fighting for. And that two-state

solution has become an empty shell for

people to talk about something, but not

take any action. And by any action,

we've been led to October 7th. by not

presenting a viable vision and not

organizing ourselves around that, we've

been we've succumbed to this managing

the conflict. Right? So, we'll talk

about the two-state solution, but

everyone knows it's not going to work.

And we find ourselves in international

very very important forums with serious

decision makers who say two-state

solution, we know it's never going to

happen.

So in a way for me I was I was taking

the life of my children into my own

hands. I was like okay that's just not

good enough. We have to reimagine

a two-state solution that can work or a

new vision that will actually

be able to

be pragmatic and practical work but also

organize and excite Palestinians and

Israelis. And I'll just say one more

thing about that kind of transformation.

For me, coming from a human rights

background, I wanted to be a human

rights lawyer to end the occupation. Um,

and I understand that sounds a little

naive today. Uh, and I still think that

Israelis who are doing that work are

saints and and and this is the most

important work to be done. But at the

same time, we haven't politically seen

Palestinians as equal politically.

we can maybe save them, we can control

them. There's there's a dynamic of that

power dynamic always underneath.

And for me, the positionality of

realizing

on my my in my skin that until Rola and

the Palestinian people are safe and

free, we will never be free and

liberated and safe either. Our security

is dependent on each other. Rua, I know

that you previously were a supporter of

a one-state solution. Tell me about how

you came to this idea and how your

thinking evolved.

>> I came to this idea because I started

realizing two things. First of all, we

have already a one-state reality or one

state construction on the ground between

the Jordan and the Sea. But you know

under one regime and one power which is

the Israeli one and the Palestinians

live under daily domination and

occupation and military control and

apartheide. Needless to say in the last

two and a half years ethnic cleansing

and genocide um um and annexation of

their tiny small part of of the land. I

mean uh the Gaza Strip and uh and the

West Bank. [gasps]

I'm I'm not sure that even

you [clears throat] the audience is

understanding what's happening in the

West Bank. People hear about you know

having checkpoints. There is military

control

[clears throat] uh terrorism and

violence of of the settlers but

the reality on the ground is is way

worse. um the the immense of daily

domination

um and control of people's life in in

the West Bank is just immense. I don't

know if there is something

similar or has been in in other places

under other conflicts and because we are

not speaking about you know uh very

direct war. It's an ongoing longterm

daily um atrocities and restrictions and

humiliation of [snorts] of of people.

So to start from this fact and reality

on the ground, it will be hard [snorts]

um for us to move especially now after

what happened in the last 2 and a half

years to to move immediately for uh um

an equal one state reality where

actually all Palestinians and all

Israelis are equal uh in the same uh one

state. The second point I claim from my

research and observations that the

majority of the Palestinians and the

Israeli Jews on the ground in Israel

Palestine are not in a postnational

mindset the way I thought

uh and the way that a lot of people here

think. the the sense of ethnational

belonging and interests and national

symbols and um the desire to have for

each group its own political national

entity is still very strong and we need

to to acknowledge that and to respect

that.

>> Uh

the last few years have been staggering

in their violence. You've used the word

genocide here and domination

and here you are also advocating for a

plan that at its core would require

people to treat each other with trust as

equals um in a shared enterprise. It

feels hard to not just imagine the plan

but imagine the people who would engage

in this plan.

>> Yeah. So, this may seem like a simple

question, but I think it's a it's an

important one to to try to feel. Why are

you not held back by the belief that

this is impossible to solve?

>> Well, I think it's um

it's very hard. It's very complicated.

We are facing now a very

um or maybe the ugliest phase of the

history of of both people since October

7th. We are not ignoring all of that.

I'm not ignoring that. We've been

speaking a couple of days ago with uh

some friends and and policy experts in

in DC and one of them who is uh Egyptian

Egyptian American. We've been speaking

about Gaza and and he brought actually

an Arabic word to describe what all of

us feel and felt while watching the

um the second Nakba, the genocide uh

24/7 on our screens, the word that

doesn't exist um in in in the English

language.

It's a combination of being angry and

humiliation of your humanity and

existence and who you are

and

with helpless that you you you cannot

you you don't have any anything to do

and um

yeah um

that's why Um,

I'm I'm doing what I'm doing because if

there is something to save

in our souls as as Palestinians and if

there is something to save in terms of

dreaming about Palestine even in in part

of historic Palestine,

this is something that I'm committed to

do after what happened in in Gaza. Gaza

is gone

and we are involved with a lot of people

who are involved with what's going on in

Gaza, the board of peace, the executive

committee and so on and the many actors

in the international community. [snorts]

The amount of

helpless

and

lack of orientation

and ability to make decisions and to do

things on the ground is just insane. And

I don't want to see that

in the coming years when it comes to the

whole Palestinian situation because what

is threatened now since in in a very

direct intensive way uh since October

7th is the collective political national

being of the Palestinians in Palestine.

And I'm doing this work in order to just

maybe save what is to save there. If we

don't offer um new arrangements, new

political vision, if we don't see this

uh very bad situation as an opportunity

to start, I don't have any illusion. I

cannot promise anybody that this

solution or any other solution similar

or different is going to be implemented

tomorrow or next year or I don't know

where when

but history is not um static

and we cannot know now when this opening

is going to come. We Palestinians are

not going to give up.

We are there and we insist to be there.

This is our place and we are going to

continue to struggle.

>> Can I say something about the trust? I I

think that's a very

>> as an Israeli I think that's a an

important question for

for us to to deal with.

What is the alternative? The alternative

right now is either continuing in the

footsteps of this government, which is

to destroy the Palestinian peoplehood,

or a fake status quo. I don't know if

that would be the right term, but this

belief that we can just not solve this

conflict.

And so, the first thing that we need to

commit ourselves to is realizing that if

we're not going to solve this conflict,

it will solve us, right? That is what

led us.

>> What What does that mean? Because I

mean, as you know better than me that

most Israelis, the center of Israeli

political opinion actually does not

think there is no alternative. Like the

alternative the alternative is the path

they're on. The opposition party even in

this election is not hugely different

than Netanyahu on this. That the idea I

think the idea as best I understand it

is basically the alternative is

>> there is Jewish Israeli security

supremacy over the land.

>> Mh. and uh the conflict, so to speak,

can be controlled and managed. They're

not going to let their guard down the

way they did uh before October 7th.

There's going to be more settlement

building. There's going to be more

control. Israel controls 65% of Gaza

now.

>> Absolutely. This is absolutely true.

>> To some people, this is not just an

alternative. This is a pathway to

realize, you know, quite ancient hopes.

>> So when you're in conversation with

that,

>> Yeah. So that is all true and that we

are seeing play out right now in Israel

Palestine. This is this is the reality

right this is [gasps and sighs] and my

question to to you or to us to us

Israelis is like has this ensured your

safety and security? The answer is no.

If you are messianic and you have dreams

that are beyond life right that are

about eternity that's a different

timeline. But for people who are

actually concerned with safety and

security for their children and a better

future and life,

the current paradigm has not ensured our

safety and security until this day,

right? Like it's not only October 7th.

What about what's happening now with

Israel re-entering Lebanon? What's

happening with Iran? What's happening in

the south? I mean, what what's happening

in the West? There's no place that we

actually feel safe right now. And I

think that that's an important um

realization that we have to say out loud

and confront. We're not safe now. This

has not given us safety. I'll give you a

more concrete example in the place where

we have seen the utmost um um commitment

to segregation and separation, right?

and the billiond dollar wall and and

these mechanisms and all the IDF you

know security measures and technology

that is where all hell broke loose

that's Gaza

so when people say that big walls will

ensure my safety I say no it won't

my I live in Jaffa and there's a lot to

say about the inequality of Palestinian

citizens of Israel but the truth of the

matter is that Palestinians who are

living within Israel and have more

rights, not equal rights at all.

That is where we're not slaughtering

each other, right? That those are the

kindergarten teachers of my baby.

So, no one will convince me that

security will be given to me or insured

to me by bigger, more walls and more

separation. That's number one. The other

thing that I want to say about is is

history. History shows us also in

Israel. I think that Egypt is probably

the big the the best example. Egypt

after 1973 was considered Hitler. Saddat

was considered Hitler and Egypt was

considered the next biggest threat to

Israel. And then 79 h you know we got to

79. There's a peace agreement and that

today ensures my safety. Israelis go to,

you know, take vacations in Sinai. And

that's the safest uh uh border that I

have as an Israeli.

So, we have to flip the narrative

based on history. The last thing that

I'll say about this is that when you

look at other conflicts around the world

but also um in Israel Palestine

before

negotiations there's

no belief that this can be solved. Once

negotiations start suddenly the belief

in public opinion rises. A month before

the Berlin Wall fell people said it will

never fall. A month before the Good

Friday Agreement was signed people say

it will never be solved. Well, guess

what it was?

And when we need to get to that tipping

point and we're doing the work on the

ground, but once we get there and that

moment will come, are we ready with a

good pragmatic relevant solution? That

is what we're here to do.

>> One of the things I've been curious

about how both of you see on in your

respective parts of these societies

is the role of the religious factions.

Something that many people involved in

previous negotiations have said to me is

they feel that what they never knew how

to approach was the people who were not

just working off of the interests of

today but to use the term you used uh on

a more eternal timeline.

And I mean these are significant

factions in both societies. I mean right

now the Netanyahu coalition is uh in a

state of instability and fracture

because it might lose ultraorththodox

support.

>> Yeah.

>> How in this vision do you balance

people whose

belief is that there is a a divine right

and rit to a certain outcome.

I think

both national movements if we consider

now for this uh 2 minutes Zionism to be

a national movement and it is but not

only

>> you see how difficult partnership is

right I mean this is a good example of

just emphasizing how difficult this work

is

>> just by yeah I mean saying Zionism is is

a national movement. I mean yes it is

also

>> yeah but also it Zionism has developed

also to be to have another component

which is actually uh constitute the

major problem in Israel Palestine and

for the Palestinian people which is the

settler colonial uh aspects of of

Zionism. So to to go back to the

national aspects of Zionism, I think um

that all of us Palestinians, Israeli

Jews changed

and that both societies

uh developed to be much more

conservative and religious. I think

there is a tendency among Israelis, even

secular um liberal [gasps]

to use religion and to uh emphasize the

role of religion and conservatism uh

when it comes to imagining the future

and speaking about Israel Palestine

while on the Palestinian context less

um it's it's more about um the the

importance.

>> Can you defend that statement for me? I

mean kamas is a very religious

organization. Yeah.

Yeah. Absolutely. And it's it's part of

an Islamic political Islamic uh

>> Right. I understand that. But

>> movement. Yeah.

>> But what may maybe I can better

understand what what what you're saying

here.

>> You're saying that there's a tendency

for secular Israelis to overstate the

role of religion as a barrier on either

side. But it feels like it's quite real

>> on both sides and and the Hamas is

religiously informed

>> that much of Israeli society is quite

religiously informed.

>> And you know to take these views

sincerely

they are not just based on a horse

trading of interests around

security and

>> um prosperity in the moment. they're

connected to

questions that have uh that that are

less vulnerable to transactional

solutions.

>> Absolutely. I I agree with you. But I I

was trying to um um to describe the

development that we that that actually

brought both of us Palestinians and

Israelis to this uh situation. We we do

not skip in our political vision all of

these aspects and developments and we

start from acknowledging not only

international law and rights and you

know all of these liberal approaches uh

um and universal approaches but we start

from the connection of both people to

Israel Palestine as as part of their

religious historical cultural and also

political identity. So we we we we we

know that it's important and that we the

way we cannot avoid other lessons

learned from um our history and history

of negotiations and peace efforts. We

cannot ignore also this very important

component that describes our societies.

>> Yeah, I I absolutely agree. I I think

that one of the lessons learned from

Oslo as you said is to this is cannot be

a liberal elite um intellectual secular

solution. Israel and Palestine today are

becoming more and more religious if

anything more and more traditional less

and less liberal both societies. So this

is a very important question

for me. One of the reasons why I joined

a land for all was because I had to come

to terms with my blind spot around this

exact exact reality and looking within

that and I think that said it so

beautifully.

We the the beginning the beginning of

this solution is emotions.

The very strong emotions that have also

a religious connection right to the

entire homeland. We all love this place

literally to death, right? We love it so

much. It's making us crazy. So I I would

say that that's a really strong part of

our work. And I would even say that one

of the most beautiful moments in our

events in Israel um is that when we have

events,

religious people come to our events and

they say this is the first time we feel

part of the peace camp. We don't feel

that you've excluded us. We feel that we

can be part of this. We can support

this. And that's very reassuring right

now.

>> So let's talk about what this vision

actually calls for. I want to talk

through the the dimensions of the plan

and then also of course through some of

the challenges or questions it it opens.

But the first tenant in your paper is

open borders.

What do open borders mean in this

context? Rula.

>> Yeah. First of all, I I do want to see

the day that Israel is going to define

its uh its borders because you know we

we we are not there now. uh even to

speak about borders between Israel and

Palestine it's

sound imaginary now because

Israel is still in the in the ideology

of expansion in the whole Middle East

and this is one of the problems by by

the way with the Zionist ideology

>> but your but your plan does go for

>> we are speaking about gradually opening

the borders between uh Israel and

Palestine as two states we will have

borders ers. But we want to be to have

these borders open

in order um first of all to implement

and give the people um the the ability

to practice what we started uh uh our

conversation speaking about the

connection to the entire homeland. For

me, the whole space is going to be

Palestine. It's been Palestine and it's

going to continue to be Palestine

despite the definitions of two

territories and [snorts] the

acknowledgement of the state of Israel

and the state of Palestine. Um it will

be in my in my blood in my soul

Palestine.

So and and for for the Jews they they

can consider also the whole entire

homeland if if they would like to as uh

Israel or you know Israel. Um so opening

the borders uh will give both people the

opportunity to practice this sense of

belonging and connection but also to

reside from one place to another.

For example,

if you are

an Israeli Jewish citizen

and you are practiced as a software

engineer and you want to work for a

company in Raabi in the West Bank, there

is a tech park in Raabi in Ber near near

Ramla. You will be able to work there.

you will apply for a work permission

[snorts] and if you would like to you

can also take your family with you and

have an apartment there. It's like in in

any other place in the world. uh uh even

here you live in New York but you work

in I don't know LA or you you was born

here and this ability for people to to

move between the two spaces and we are

speaking about a very tiny small of of

place Israel Palestine it's uh it's like

New Jersey I think

so it's very natural for people to move

also between the two spaces because of

their circumstances

life uh um conditions and because of

their connection. I'm going to interrupt

for one second just to draw out

something that you mentioned that I just

want to have you explain which is that

in in that scenario you just laid out

the software engineer who wants to work

uh outside Ramala

>> it that person even if they moved there

>> and this seems to me to be one way this

vision differs from from one state

visions

>> they would still vote for the prime

minister

>> exactly

>> of Israel and similarly somebody from

Ramala who maybe moves to work near a

hospital in Tel Aviv they can live in

Tel Aviv, but they would still vote for

the prime minister

>> or leader of Palestine.

>> They will continue having their

citizenship rights in their national

state. Palestinians vote for the

Palestinian uh government. Okay.

Um but they can have residency in Israel

and accordingly all the civil rights uh

and and local rights that comes with the

uh residency uh status and vice versa.

But the whole concept is to start with

freedom of movement and freedom of

residency.

Um this concept actually gives us a

space to think about arrangements when

it comes for example

for um solving the very important issue

one of the core Palestinian issues which

is the right of return and the

Palestinian refugees.

these refugees

they will get um uh citizenship in the

state of Palestine but they will be able

also to apply for residency in Israel

the way that the the place that they

will were expelled from originally in in

48. So, I'm going to come back to right

of return in a moment because I do want

us to talk about it. But, but my I want

to

>> ask the question that I think many

Israeli Jews would have hearing this,

which is

how can you possibly have open borders

and be safe? How can you have open

borders and not have, you know, someone

from Islamic jihad in the West Bank

coming through with explosives strapped

to them and then blowing up a bus in Tel

Aviv, as happened many, many times, is,

you know, much better than me. Even here

uh in America with much more peaceful

relations with Mexico and Canada, the

idea of open borders is politically

lethal

>> and the concerns are primarily security

and overwhelm. So how do you answer

those concerns?

>> So

there there's a practical answer to that

which is we're not talking about no

borders. The question is not if there's

going to be a border. It's what kind of

a border there will be and in order to

achieve what

we are committed

first and foremost for the security of

both people. That is why we do what we

do for the security of Israel and for

the security of Palestine. That's number

one. what we're offering here is moving

gradually gradually with all the

mechanisms needed and we can look at

places like the European Union. So it's

important to to keep in mind that the

European Union is one good example. Um

but there's no exact example for Israel

Palestine, right? And and I want to say

that because a lot of the time people

get stuck and say, "Oh, it's not exactly

the same and it's impossible, right? I

mean, you know, here's Jews and Arabs.

This is the Middle East. it's a

different time and because there is no

other exact example of this than it's

never going to work and that never going

to work mentality is part of what got us

to this awful situation we're in. Um

there is no unique perfect example and

it's good to talk about Northern Ireland

as another example of power sharing and

transitioning from you know a zero sum

game into freedom of movement, freedom

of residency. I mean decoupling that

nationality from a geographic space and

into sustainable peace. So there are you

know other examples out there.

What I have been admiring about the

European Union and what has helped me is

number one the political imagination of

it. If you would be 80 years ago in

Europe and someone would tell you that

in 75 years you would be able to move

freely between France and Germany and

your grandchildren will be able to

reside in Berlin as French hipsters. You

would say there's no way lock her up.

But that's the reality today. And the

reality of that came from a place of

interest. And that's very important to

say as well. This was not you know that

French and Germans were starting to love

each other and to say let's how can we

live together happily. It was after

hundreds of years of bloodshed and the

realization that their shared interests

can actually ensure their safety. It

took 70 years, 60 years, 50 years to get

to an arrangement of freedom of

movement. That's okay. I have 50 years

to wait for peace. I don't have 50 years

waiting for what's going on right now to

continue.

>> But how do you ensure that security at

this border? When people hear open

border, they hear

>> easeful freedom of movement through a

line that barely exists. What are you

actually

>> So we are talking about borders for

sure, right? What we're suggesting is

not not to have security arrangements.

It's of course to have very

sophisticated security arrangements. And

again, I mean, I I think that the

European is a great way or Northern

Ireland and Ireland and the UK are a

great place to see how that works

without without compromising on security

on on the contrary, but basing it on an

individual question rather than a

collective question. It will have to be

a process, right? So we start with

borders and then we start in these

borders creating the ability to move

freely between the two states based on

your individual security

I don't know what to say file rather

than a collective ethnic religious

question right right now if you're a

Palestinian you can't cross the border

although there's a lot to say about that

for sure right with the amount of

Palestinian workers entering Israel

every day and no one even you

talking about that when it comes to

security because we depend on it. The

other thing that I'll say is that what I

think is exceptionally meaningful with

the land for all's proposition is that

it tackles the motivations of the

conflict. Now this does not mean that

we're going to sign an agreement and

everything will be perfect. But if you

have that endgame clear and if you have

answered the collective needs of both

people, you take away the justification,

the normalization of conflict and

violence. I think that is the the

biggest new thing that we offer.

>> I I have a shorter answer for this

question actually. Ezra, [laughter]

let's let's remember how things started.

If everything started 48. Okay. Um

>> even earlier

>> of course earlier but the you know the

the important point that everything

started uh um

um is actually 48 uh the the Palestinian

Nagbah first Nagbah we have now the

second Nagba. [gasps] So in this case if

we are going to have a political

settlement and peace and reconciliation

and recognition and I'm speaking about

you know big concepts but we believe

that it's doable um there will be no

need to speak about

this even question how can we ensure the

security of the of the Israeli Jews. I

do want to ensure uh their security. But

you know what? Um I think who is more

threatened

and has been threatened equally at least

equally

like the Jewish Israelis if not more in

the last two and a half years are also

the are also the the Palestinians. So we

need to to mutually

revision what happened over the past I

don't know eight decades and start from

that.

>> I don't disagree with that but I think

that creates this chicken and egg

question with the plan you're offering

>> and to say that if there is no need for

violence there will be no violence.

>> Uh I mean that's true right but it's

somewhat tautologically true.

Some people might say, "Look, this is a

huge step forward. I'm willing to to to

approach this peacefully."

>> But every day in the West Bank, radical

settlers are committing tremendous acts

of violence. Um, in the second inifat,

there was constant suicide bombing. The

one of the histories of this uh region,

as you both know better than I do, is

violent spoilers making uh peace

projects or settlement projects

impossible.

>> Mhm.

>> And so it is true that if you could get

to a point where there was no more

violence, then a lot of the ideas on

this become much easier. I mean, it's

not I'm not worried about the absence of

aggressive security on the California uh

you know, Arizona border. Um, but that's

not

>> but that's exactly the opposite. It's

exactly the opposite. I mean,

>> so we're not going to sign an agreement

and open the borders. That is not the

plan. We will absolutely have to go

through a long process. A long process.

And again, that has been done in other

places with bloodier conflicts. So, so

we have to, you know, let go of the fact

that it's impossible because but the

truth is that we have left room for

spoilers and we have experienced the

fallout of previous negotiations because

there has never been a commitment to a

clear endgame.

So during the OS accords there was steps

there was uh a process but at no point

did Israel say there will be at the end

of this process a Palestinian sovereign

independent state. Never. And if you

don't have that commitment to the

endgame then [clears throat] you leave

room for spoilers. Palestinians are

never going to buy that anymore. Ever.

We've we've failed too many times to

say, "Oh, yeah, eventually there's going

to be kind of a two-state solution

without doing that." And so what we are

saying is that we need to exactly flip

that on its head. I think that the

recent moves of several states to

recognize Palestine first was a step in

that direction, right? Not to say that

the two-state solution is the end of the

process, but a Palestinian state has to

be the beginning of the process in order

to get to a reality where we could

actually make peace.

>> But I guess the the the reason I'm

pushing on this is that the politics of

Israel could not be farther from that.

>> Absolutely.

>> In any possible way.

>> Yeah. And so to say that the only way to

think about this plan or the only way to

think about this approach is that there

needs to be first and foremost an

ironclad commitment from let's say a

supermaajority of Israeli Jews to go not

just to a two-state solution but to a

confederacy with shared sovereignty over

Jerusalem which is one of the tenants of

the plan with a form of right of return

throughout the entire uh land. And to

say that you know the promise is that

security will follow that. I talk to

people there and they'll say well look

we tried a peace process. We tried also

and what we got was a second inifato. We

were we are not going to make that

mistake

>> again. So when you are trying to pitch

it to the audience

that you need to get to agree to it.

>> Yeah.

>> Which are the people who live near you.

What do you say to them?

Things are changing in the Middle East

and in Israel Palestine in a way that

they haven't in a very very long time.

For the past 20 years, we have been

under this false um assumption that we

can again not solve this conflict.

October 7th is not was not a security

problem. It's a political problem. It's

an outcome of not solving the conflict.

Do we have all the answers? Absolutely

not. We have invested 30 years in

thinking about the paradigm of

separation for peace, which I think

today is impossible to achieve and also

not desirable if we learn from other

conflicts. We haven't invested nearly

anything in trying to elaborate a vision

like this that learns from mistakes of

the past and learns from other conflicts

that have been solved sustainably. That

is what we need to do today. This is not

to say that security is not our number

one concern. As will said, security for

both people, right? Because a lot of the

time we say security, we mean security

for Israeli Jews. That has been part of

the I would say problem with the

international discourse around this. But

I um as an Israeli trust and know that

we have the technical capacity in Israel

to deal with this challenge. There's no

doubt that we have the technical

capacity. But the question is where are

you going? Right? What is the vision?

What is the endgame? Because if the

endgame is what we had 30 years ago that

hasn't been relevantly updated, that

doesn't tackle the core deadlocks of the

two-state solution that we all know,

refugees, water, Jerusalem, borders,

right? Settlements. If we don't have

good answers to these questions and and

that's what we're doing, we will never

get to a place that we can actually move

forward.

>> Tell tell me a bit more about the way

that the vision approaches the

settlements. Um I was thinking about

some conversations I had when I was

there where you said to me, "These lines

you all draw are ridiculous." that the

idea that there is a deeper if there is

any Jewish connection to the land, it is

deeper to Hebrron than to Tel Aviv.

>> Yeah.

>> That if there's any religious grounding

for why we are here, it does not follow

the boundaries of the 67 borders. And

and I also remember realizing just like

when I was driving around the West Bank,

these are not going away. that uh the

is really Jews sort of from the old

peace camp who tell me oh maybe we can

still that it's too many people it's too

big it's too entrenched they're building

more every day

>> one thing that I find very interesting

in in in in this project is that you

you can frame it different ways but in a

way that is different from I think the

two-state solutions with all of its land

swaps and everything you're able much

more directly to simultaneously accept

the presence of

>> Jewish people in the West Bank, in East

Jerusalem,

and accept Palestinian right of return

sort of at the same time. When I read

it, and I I doubt this is how you all

would frame it, though maybe you do, it

almost feels like a trade.

Well, first of all,

we are very careful not to make that

symmetry between refugees and settlers.

>> It's very important for us not to make

that symmetry

for all the reasons. But what I would

say that there

>> because refugees have a right

to be part of their homeland. They have

been um subjected to terror and to

expulsion from their homes.

Settlers right now the settlement

enterprise is an illegal and immoral

enterprise. It is against international

law. A lot of it is against Israeli law

and it is based on a system of

supremacy.

That's there's no question about that

and we are all in agreement with that.

But what we also see is that Jews have a

strong sense of attachment and that's

not going to change, right? We that has

been going on forever. Jews have forever

lived in that piece of land and they

will probably forever will because

[clears throat] because that attachment

is greater than anything else than you

know the sovereign. It's greater than

that. And what we are offering around

that is not to approve the settlements

and normalize them and say that that's I

mean they're there so whatever they can

stay not at all but it is to say that we

understand that there needs to be a

mechanism to deal with Jews who have a

very strong sense of attachment to their

homeland and for them to be able to live

there safely but with no no privileges

control you know terror to Palestinians.

And so the I don't want to it's

important for me not to make that

symmetry, but it is important for me to

say that land for all has this elegance

to it that it is a holistic approach.

>> Well, I what I talk about as a trade,

the way I read the plan and again this

might be wrong. I'm reading it as a

person who lives in the United States is

that I was thinking about in terms of

interests and one of the things that

feels different to me about a land for

all is that there are certain interests

that both societies hold very dear.

>> Yeah.

>> That have typically been

excluded or pushed to the side.

>> Yeah.

>> As too difficult or too extreme for the

main negotiations.

>> Exactly. And the the main ones I think

of there are right of return which the

Israeli governments have functionally

not been willing to discuss at any

serious level. Settlements which people

have not known what to do with and that

the more they have been built the more

unlikely their unwinding has become. And

the fact that people still talk about it

just to me is evidence of a dead

paradigm they've not figured out an

answer to.

>> Yeah. Exactly. um and Jerusalem, which

is another complex conversation, but but

those two specifically have uh I guess

you you would describe it as an as an

elegance, but to me, what it looks like

is a bringing into the conversation of

two quite profound interests that have

been pushed to its margins with arguably

somewhat disastrous results.

>> Yeah. you know, the the right of return

of the Palestinian refugees is one of

the

core issues,

political, moral, um, um,

emotional

issues of the Palestinian question. And

any solution that

tries to avoid

referring to this uh uh issue is going

to fail. And we we are speaking about

half of the Palestinian people. We start

from we didn't spoke much about the

aspects of recognition and historic rec

reconciliation between the two people

that are two important principles uh

that our paradigm and political platform

is based on this political vision needs

before saying more about the right of

return of the Palestinian people needs

needs actually transformative

national narratives of both people.

Um,

>> can you say more about what that means

and what those narratives would be?

>> Yeah, I I I think that

we Palestinian I will start from us

Palestinians.

I I think it's time for all of us to

acknowledge the collective history and

memory of memory of the Jewish people

[snorts] that is shaping their fears uh

insecurities and so on. It doesn't in

any mean to give them any legitimacy for

what's have been done for the

Palestinian people in the last 80 years.

But we we we need to understand these

people and these are very deep

psychological deep aspects of any

conflict that we need to acknowledge.

The same

for the Israeli Jews. They need to also

have this national

uh uh narrative transformation of moving

from denying the Nikkba

and what happened there. Um and the

injustices

and to acknowledge this is something

that that they did. Um and in order to

move forward uh the the acknowledgement

is very important and the reconciliation

with our

self histories and memories and with the

others are very important.

>> I I think this question of how the

people's stories

both change and coexist is is really

important worth spending time on because

it's a hard one to address through

policy. plans don't know what to do with

stories and identities.

>> But but it's also a place where for

instance the European Union example

begins to break down

>> because one very I think important

dimension of the European story was an

agreed upon postw World War II

narrative. Germany was wrong.

>> Yeah.

>> Germany had lost. Germany was defeated.

Germany was

>> correctly occupied. Germany was not

allowed to have

>> military well right now. uh but you know

you got got a fair amount of peace out

of it. So we'll you know we'll we'll see

the the we'll see what happens with the

AFD. But the the point I'm making about

that is that one way that Europe as we

now think of it was built was on you

know a very bloodily agreed to

description of what had happened and

that's not going to be true here.

>> No. Yeah.

>> And I think that's actually as you said

I think that's also part of the weakness

of these arrangements. I think that

Rwanda is also a good example of that.

The weakness of this winning history of

winners.

>> Um I think that what we are suggesting

is something that is again like breaking

away from the binary. This needs to be

our work is to and and this is also the

origin of land for all. It was a group

of people who came to terms with the

fact that the two-state solution as we

know it is no longer

viable. It can't physically happen.

Learning from the mistakes and saying

why why why has this failed or in the

control that we have right? I'm not

talking about the assessination of

Rabin. I'm not talking about you know

what is in our control to say to learn

from the reasons why and the the the

co-creation which I think is really the

secret ingredient right I mean Israelis

have been trying to negotiate with

Americans over Palestine for a long time

that hasn't been successful it has to be

co-created in order for it to be

acceptable right so another thing we

learned from Oslo is that the conflict

didn't start in 1967

right the occupation is a problem, but

it it's not the problem. It needs to go

backwards. It needs to address the

motivations, the narratives. And so, if

you do not come with a narrative that

addresses religion, that addresses

belonging, that addresses the the the

belonging to the entire homeland, to the

refugees, the Nakba, the Holocaust,

>> not going to work. And now in addition

we have October 7th of course and the

genocidal war in Gaza without again

doing symmetry between both events. Part

of this package need to be also to

practice accountability for those who

were involved in all of these atrocities

and massacres and killing and so on. But

so so I want to hold on this for a

minute because I think two things you

both have said here in the last couple

of minutes they they open up questions

and certainly in my reading of the plan

and the documents are not answered. But

one is this question of accountability

that you brought up and if your belief

is that there cannot be peaceful sharing

and you know partnership

absence some kind of accountability

process. what you imagine that looking

like and and why you imagine that

players on either side would submit to

it and and two [snorts] you both of you

brought up quite a lot of

the long historical stories both sides

tell but I actually don't understand how

this is able to address that right how

does this address the completely

incompatible narratives of what happened

on October 7th and after it how does it

address I can sort understand how to

dress as an akba right like I I can read

that in the um in in the plan and the

sort of focus on creating a space of

right of return I can see that but

there's a lot that has happened since it

is not answered there from you know the

peace processes to the second so there's

a sort of a difference between saying

there's a plan for now versus a plan to

reconcile

this shared history

And

which of those are we looking at? And if

you believe we're looking at the second,

a way to change the way Israelis see

themselves,

>> a way to change how Palestinians see

themselves.

>> I mean, that in some ways seems like an

even harder

>> challenge

than trying to, you know, imagine new

border policies.

>> Yeah.

>> What is it? What is the mechanism the

levers that you see doing that?

So one of the research groups that we

are organizing um is about transitional

justice.

We are committed to do the learning from

other places to ensure that we

incorporate those lessons in this

program right in this solution. And so I

I I'm humbled to say that we have

amazing um experts international and

Israeli and Palestinians who are doing

that work with that. I think that this

solution, the fact that it does talk

about the past in a way that reconciles

the main collective needs of both people

for freedom, for acknowledgement of

their history, for self-determination,

for the connection, as we said, to you

know, to exercise that relationship with

the entire homeland, to address the

issue of the Nakba properly and envision

a future that is better, right? That is

better than what they have. And always

says this when we talk to Palestinians,

what we often hear is that, well, this

is definitely much better than Oslo,

right? Like, this is better. I mean,

this is much better for Palestinians

than what we've been given before.

>> I do I do want to say a couple of words

about about that. Um,

[sighs and gasps]

I don't want the Israeli Jews to love

the Palestinians and vice versa. And we

are going not going to love each other.

Not at this moment and not in the coming

years

maybe and we don't need to forget and

not to for forgive

but we need to ensure having another

situation that we can at least

continue living

and the other pro problems maybe won't

be solved

uh in our generation but in the other uh

generations

we have to have to to start implementing

um the political vision itself gradually

and changing the the reality in order to

open the space for deeper

transformative conversations between the

two people that will come one day. I

>> I want to pick up on something you just

said which is around

gradualism. Right. There there's one

dimension of looking at this which is

like a like a big plan. It's a kind of

final

uh equilibrium

>> that would be a radical transformation

of these two societies and their

relationships with each other. But to go

back to something we were talking about

earlier, you know, if you take the EU

example, it begins with the steel and

coal community. And so, you know, if you

imagine a world that is six or seven

years down the road,

not a world of Netanyahu and Abbas or

Bennett Lee and Abbas, um, but but

there's been a sort of revolution or two

in leadership.

And it's not that

who has come into power is

transformationally

different, but they're open to something

new. And there's a feeling that this has

gone the fighting that it has all become

destructive, that it is going nowhere.

Um

there's space for whatever reason. There

is space, but there's not space for an

end to all these issues. There's just

space to try something new. What does

gradualism look like?

What is the steel and coal

uh community? What is the things that

could begin to build

the sense of trust or belief because you

saw it work on a small scale

>> that then ladders up to larger

uh possibilities.

you know when we met with a very I would

say um important regional player in the

past few months the one the first thing

that they said is like do not talk to us

about a road map we never want to hear

that word again ever like if you just

don't even mention it

our commitment is

to present an endgame

that can

because we know that without that clear

endgame,

you just repeat mistakes of the past.

>> Okay. But you have to start somewhere.

>> Yes. Yes. But I'm I'm just important for

me to say yes. Absolutely. But it's

important for me to just reiterate how

important that is. Um and how we have

examples on the ground that show that.

>> What I would say is except for that

commitment to an endgame, right? like

that clarity of where this is leading us

and no questions about that is issues

like public health.

I think that public health and economy

and climate are things that um impact

our day-to-day life are a great example

of places where we know we can't work

separately. If you have COVID in Tel

Aviv, you will have CO in Ramala.

[snorts] Uh and so that's in my

imagination of this um without

developing the blueprint exactly yet of

the how to get there and again we're

working on it. Uh I would say that those

are the places where I would imagine

this starting from healthcare, economy,

climate, water, Jerusalem, the places

where it actually

>> Do you want to say a word on what that

would mean for Jerusalem? I would I I

would add to that also security security

cooperation not under a system of

control and violence.

>> I I want to dig in on this a little bit

because sort of that was a a list of I

would say issues escalating in their

scale, right? You can imagine modest

levels of community of cooperation and

public health all the way up to

Jerusalem and security which are core.

>> Yeah. So, I think the reason I'm asking

this and the reason I I'm I'm pushing a

little bit on on this question is that I

don't think people will believe in your

endgame until they see it work in

miniature.

>> Yeah.

>> Your your view as I hear it is that

people have to be committed to the

endgame

for this to even begin.

>> But, you know, I can I can read the

polling. You do not have the support for

that right now.

>> Right. So if

>> but again you didn't have the support

for Oslo before Oslo or

>> but also didn't work.

>> Sure. Absolutely. But and again that's

because no work was also done on the

ground to complement it.

>> So so the the question I'm having is if

there is a moment of opportunity and you

could implement something. I mean you

know security or trus are both good

examples. I I am actually

I find it to be one of the more

depressing realities

of

the situation that the degree of

cooperation and the effectiveness of the

cooperation on security.

>> Yeah.

>> Between the PA and the Israeli

government has been sort of pocketed by

the Israeli government as opposed to

been the basis of something bigger.

>> Yeah. But you know you were say so you

you put that on the table as something

that you know you can imagine that being

a place where there could be a more

transformation thing because it has also

created a negative outcome where the

PA's lost and eroded support and

legitimacy.

Now I would say that was sort of the way

the Israeli government wanted it.

Talk me through one place [snorts] that

be it Jerusalem security something else

where people would look at this and in

your view they would see it and then

they say oh maybe these land for all

people are right. Maybe if we share as

opposed to separate, maybe if we

cooperate as opposed to um dominate, you

get an outcome that is, you know, for in

this case Jewish Israelis, safer and

more stable

and more just

without having to be committed to the

entire vision. there there are a lot of

uh examples in the in the health um um

field for for example but um I'm I'm I'm

not sure that I do want to uh cooperate

with you in this uh in this conversation

on on this topic because I think it's um

it it needs to be to be in a different

way that the Palestinians are not going

now to um

you know uh accept or agree for actual

partial steps on the ground until

I think there is a need for something uh

dramatic and people from both sides need

to see a plan with a timeline not again

some steps here like what what is

happening since the last fall with with

Gaza people are in and believe me we are

in these conversations

um in in a lot of international uh

context people are speaking about the

reconstruction of Gaza and the human

humanitarian situation of course without

doing anything that this is for sure

since September or October but nobody is

speaking about uh um the rest of the the

Israelis and the Palestinians and about

where are we heading this time. So no,

I'm I'm not going to accept all of these

failures. We start first of all from

acknowledging

um in transformative acknowledgement and

recognition the state of Palestine.

Countries and states need to start

filling this

>> recognition in actions diplomatic,

political, legal, economic and so on.

Okay to start with and presenting

a platform for the political vision. I

hope it's going to be our political

vision and we are happy to to bring um

much more insights and blueprints and

content to the whole phases

but we know all of us we know in I don't

know 2050 we will be there and people

will start also seeing

the improvement of of the conditions of

their lives. I think that's number one

>> immediately

[snorts] but we cannot do it the way it

has been done before 30 years. It it for

me it creates an interesting instability

in how to think about what you all have

released here and and the way I'd put it

is this that I take the point that you

need a vision you're working towards and

I also take the point that I think

you're making here which is that it

would be folly right now to think that

every sentence put down on a plan in

2026 even in a world where that plan

became viable would be the final

structure of the plan or would be how it

would be implemented like that that's

that requires a level of um policy

literalism that that even I am not not

willing to do. But I guess what you're

both getting at on some level and I

agree with but is in some ways a harder

question is not

what kinds of answers you might imagine

a constructive process with people

committed to a just outcome

might entertain.

It's how do you get to the point where

there's a room with a table with people

>> who can begin debating the finer points

of the plan. Israel is at this moment

undoubtedly the stronger actor in this

conflict and there is very very little

room for much that is in this vision in

Israeli politics. the coming election is

going to pit Benjamin Netanyahu who's I

think politics are well understood

against Napali Bennett and Laid and and

and Bennett is I think you know one of

the leaders of that coalition I mean

he's on he has traditionally on many of

these issues been to Netanyahu's right

>> correct

>> and so you know I can read the polling

there uh for the commitment to this kind

of vision that you've described needing

you would need a wholesale change a

wholesale change in the structure of

Israeli public opinion and leaders ship.

What is your theory of what creates that

change that makes this possible?

>> Well, yeah, that's kind of what we're

doing, right? Like that is that's the

work. I I I we've never said that it's

easy work. And even more so, I mean,

there are no shortcuts, right? There's

there are no shortcuts. Um, when you

think about Northern Ireland for

example, as I said earlier, yes, a month

before the Great Variety Agreement, no

one believed it will ever end. But there

were at least three, if not more, very

intense years of working bottom up to

make people start imagining that the

Good Friday Agreement can and will

happen with civil society, with

journalists, with artists, with I mean

There there is a there needs to be a

whole mechanism of moving the society

from where we are today which is

annihilation of the Palestinian people.

>> But what moves it? I mean the young in

Israel today are to the right of older

generations.

>> Yeah. Absolutely. That's that's one of

the biggest problems.

>> Society has moved and it is moving and

it is changing but not in the direction

of of this. So,

>> no, no, and I would say

>> I know I know there are no shortcuts,

but but what what

>> you know, even on a 10-year time frame,

what do you believe will change

attitudes sufficiently?

>> Yeah.

>> Uh

that something like this becomes

possible.

>> We're not in a post war election. We're

not

>> um the there isn't even a ceasefire in

Gaza right now. people are, you know,

there's no ceasefire and the the war

continues and people are very much still

entrenched in the

reality of October 7th. And so I am not

counting on these elections to get us to

that vision. Not at all. But these the

right now within these elections, within

the political framework in Israel, the

conversation is so so limited. It's

between really the political imagination

which is becoming our reality of the

reality in Gaza and the West Bank and

eliminating Palestinian people and then

delegitimizing Palestinian citizens of

Israel. That's like the other part of

that spectrum and it's basically all we

have within the Jewish parties.

There is no vision. I I mean I come back

to this point because I think and I know

as an Israeli that young people are

looking for hope and for alternative

>> but sorry I I want to push us from a

space of realism here. Young people move

to the right in Israel. There are

leftwing politicians in Israel like yeah

your goal on they are not popular.

>> No butan is also the not offering hope

real hope to solve this conflict and for

security. It is not you cannot I don't

think and I think

>> but are people lacking for vision or do

they not want a vision like

>> no I think that we have been I think

that we have been trained trained and

grown and normalized this thinking that

we do not need to solve this conflict

and I think that October 7th is the

worst wakeup call that we could imagine.

We said that this will blow in our face.

we never imagined to be so bad. But this

is and should be and I believe again

that this is not the post election

postwar election that we're waiting for.

But I do believe that this is the time

to integrate into the Israeli public

conversation discourse the fact that

this conflict needs to end and that

there is a solution. I will say and this

is not to counter um the reality where

Israelis are not at all interested in

anything right now of this such but we

have met in 2025 15,000 Israelis that is

equivalent to half a million Americans

who have been looking for vision and

hope and alternatives and ways out and

political imagination and we've been

doing it I would say the majority of

these with young people with political

imagination workshops with soft entering

points, right? Not immediately with say

this is the vision, you know, vote for

this vision. No, but to say guys, wake

up. Your future is in your hands.

The leaders are not giving us that. It

has to come from us, from civil society,

from artists, from journalists, from

small politicians. And that is something

that we are very committed to doing. And

we see that our movement has been

growing exponentially since October 7th.

People are looking. Are we there yet?

No. But for example, our dear friends at

Standing Together, who are the largest

um

bottomup ground Jewish Arabic movement

on the ground today in Israel, Palestine

in Israel I should say. um they a few

months ago have announced that they for

their 10th anniversary and around

everything that's going on they're

committed to presenting a political

vision.

That political vision is ours, right?

And so you see that there's an emergence

coming out of October 7th of people

looking for a new big idea because

everything has been shattered and and

paradigms that we've been you know

working around are crumbling. And so

when you ask me about like where do I

find hope when I read the polls when I

see the young people voting for Beng

more and more when I see the the the how

saturated Israeli society today is with

violence because the violence is getting

from everywhere it is by these young

people who are asking me how can I join

a landfall and we've been getting these

by the thousands.

So I'm not looking for shortcuts. We are

here to do that work, but if we don't

start now and present that authorative

now, we're absolutely never going to get

there.

>> I agreeing with with my about all of

that. I think we need uh we need uh a

lot of pressure from outside in order to

um

to to to um to promote for this change

inside inside Israel. I think it's not

only the void of people and it's not

only that people got used not to speak

about the Israeli Palestinian conflict

and not to even we've been seeing how

they um

speak

um and treat uh Palestinians in Gaza and

in the West Bank. So there is something

and inside of Israel as well by the way.

>> Yeah. and and against us Palestinian

citizens uh in in Israel. the the

degrees of the

uh dehumanization of the Palestinian

people in the Israeli uh public

conversation and political conversation

is just insane

and

um not surprising because this is

actually the nature of settler colonial

violent arrogant uh societies

>> but also of separ also of separation

>> of and also of separation and also of

you know um uh

propaganda over propaganda in the media

and in the whole political conversation

and discourse in Israel over years.

Um and that's why I think

there is a place for

um top-down change in Israel and for uh

pressure from outside. I think I just

want to say we have we are taking the

agency of Israelis and Palestinians

leading a vision but we can't do it

alone. We can't at this point thinking

that Israeli can ensure the safety or

security of Israel or of Palestinians

for sure is wrong. There is no way we

can't do this with without serious

pressure and without serious commitments

of international actors. So this is

absolutely yeah

>> to say that this should be a wake-up

call for the international community not

to talk about the two-state solution but

to end the atrocities on the ground

first and foremost and by then securing

and committing to a real solution.

>> I think that is a good place to end our

final question. What are three books you

recommend to the audience? And Rula, why

don't we begin with you? I I I decided

to choose three books that are related

to the conversation that we that we are

having today. Uh the first one is the

Holocaust and the Nakba edited by

um good colleagues and friends Bashir

Bashir and and Amos Goldberg. It's very

important to understand um um what's

happening now. It was written before uh

October 7th and the genocide in Gaza but

it's still very important essential

book.

The second is um state of denials. Um,

it's not about Israel Palestine, but I

claim all the time that um the Israelis

um are

suffering from severe denial, collective

denial and blindness.

And um I'm I'm I'm trying to understand

that and I think a lot of people need

want maybe to understand and this book

states of denial um written by um

Stanley Cohen

is very important and helpful. The last

book is our uh again colleague and

friend Omar Bertov his uh very recent

latest book Israel what went um wrong.

my

>> I'm also kind of where thinking about

where I'm at today and so I was thinking

of uh three books that are kind of one

is is looking to the past and learning

from it and that is um a Rob Mali's book

tomorrow is Yesterday you know we're

doing this as people on the ground who

are committing to doing this bottom up

work of building the movement and vision

uh but they've been there in the

negotiations learning from the mistakes

and I think that That is a practice we

overlook and we need to really do more

often learning from our mistakes. So

that's the past. Um the second is the

psalm for the wild built. It's um a

genre that I do you know this book?

>> Yeah. I I didn't expect it to pop up

here.

>> Yeah. It's it's from a different world.

Um I

which which is very kind of off genre

for me, but I'm so grateful that I have

read it. Um, we've been in the, you

know, business of, uh, dystopias for a

long time. Uh, as a Jew, I am committed

to practice my political imagination.

It's part of my heritage and we've

neglected that. And so, this book by

Becky Chambers has really allowed me to

kind of sit with alternative futures and

help me imagine beyond what I think is

possible. I think that's so important.

Um

and the third is uh for me kind of book

for the present which is a children's

book. There are never enough good

recommendations for a children's book.

Uh it's a book um by Tove Yansen. It's

the Mumin series.

>> Um which allows me to first of all read

a book to both my four and 8-year-old

which is not so easy to find something

that we all enjoy. um but also is like a

profound um I want to say humanist but

of course it's not only about humans uh

but a very sensitive book that um allows

for room for emotions and for tackling

very serious philosophic questions and

fears um in a way that helps me be

present with my children and kind of

remember why I'm doing what what I'm

doing

>> my pundock rule thank you very much

>> thank Yeah.

[music]

Heat. [music]