Can the Israel-Hamas Deal Hold?

FirstNet is the only nationwide communications platform purpose-built with and for first responders.

FirstNet is built with ATT in a public-private partnership with the First Responder Network Authority, an independent agency responsible for ensuring firefighters, paramedics, law enforcement officers, emergency dispatchers, and others who are called on during emergencies have the communication tools they need to help keep America safe.

FirstNet built with ATT.

Learn more at firstnet.com/slash public safety first.

On October 9th, the Israeli government voted to ratify an agreement between Israel and Hamas, an agreement brokered by the Trump administration, by Qatar, and by Turkey, that finally, finally brings an end, hopefully, to the war between Israel and Hamas.

This deal has already led to the release of the remaining Israeli hostages, 20 of them.

They came home in an incredibly emotional thing to watch.

There is a release of Palestinian prisoners, which has also happened.

A cessation of hostilities, which has more or less happened.

There is the bringing in again of much more help for Gazans who are starving, who are homeless, who have endured unimaginable suffering and devastation over the past two years.

and an Israeli withdrawal further back from Gaza.

That is phase one.

But the deal also is a phase two, a much more ambitious and ambiguous phase, where it is much easier to imagine a lot going wrong and things falling apart.

But it also offers possibilities, maybe, that have not been on the table for some time.

Rob Malley has been a Middle East negotiator under President Obama, under President Biden, under President Clinton.

He is the former president and CEO of the crisis group and a lecturer now at Yale.

Hussein Aga has been a negotiator on the Palestinian side, working under Arafat, under Abbas, and in many, many both public and not-so-public negotiations with Israelis and other stakeholders in the region.

The two of them together have written a fantastic new book called Tomorrow is Yesterday.

It is a very up-close and personal history of how these negotiations played out and why they have failed over and over and over and over again.

These are two people who have devoted their lives to trying to find a solution and have emerged very realistic about how hard an enduring solution is to find.

As always, my email, ezraklinshow at mytimes.com.

Thank you, Ezra.

Thank you.

Rob, why don't we begin with you?

Tell me about the ceasefire deal as you understand it.

So, you know, there's everything to criticize about the way the deal was brought about, the way its components.

I mean, it was a deal that was done without real, you know, consultation with the Palestinians.

It's a deal that seems to ask of the Palestinians to atone for the massacre of October 7th, but doesn't ask Israel to atone for the war that followed.

It asks for the de-radicalization of Gaza.

It does not ask for the end of Israel's messianic tendencies.

It's going to have every foreign intervention in how in the future of Palestinian governance.

And it was authored by a president who for months gave all power to Netanyahu and to his government to lead the war the way they wanted to to famish Palestinians.

So that's the backdrop.

Plus, it has vagueness, it is full of contradictions in terms of no timetables, no arbiter, no way to go if there's a violation, as we've already seen in the last few days.

And yet, yet, having said all that, President Trump achieved what his predecessor was incapable or unwilling to achieve, which is an end to this awful, horrendous war and freedom for the Palestinians and the Israelis who had been held in detention.

So, and hopefully also influx of humanitarian assistance.

So, that's the balance sheet.

Hussein, the deal has a stage one, which Rob describes somewhat there, the return, thankfully, of the hostages, release of Palestinian prisoners, an enduring, hopefully ceasefire, Israel pulling back.

Then there is this much vaguer stage two.

And I've seen people debating whether or not you should even understand the deal as having anything beyond the stage one.

Stage one being a ceasefire that, in many ways, I think could have been achieved far earlier.

Do you understand the deal as having anything beyond a stage one?

And if so, what?

Deal, Shmiel, in our region, in our part of the world, deals do not matter.

What matters is what can be achieved, how soon it can be achieved, and what it will lead to.

And this deal, if it stops the slaughter permanently in Gaza, the prisoners have been released, that by itself is a big achievement.

Everything else is padding.

Everything else are hopes.

Everything else are trying to be politically correct, to satisfy the parties.

It's all verbal.

It never goes beyond that.

Look at all the deals.

I mean,

Oslo.

Oslo was a deal, an agreement that was reached discreetly between Israelis and Palestinians, settled bilaterally, and it was made up of stages.

And the only stage that was relevant was for the Palestinians to go back to the West Bank and Gaza and to have some kind of security cooperation.

And everything else did not happen.

It has expired, but people keep on referring to it.

So don't go by text.

Don't go by deals.

Rob, over the past two long years now that this war has been ongoing, the stated objective from Prime Minister Netanyahu has been to completely destroy Hamas.

And as people said that the war should end, there should be a ceasefire, there should be a deal, he would respond by saying, we have a objective here.

The objective is the destruction of Hamas, and the war cannot end until that objective is achieved.

We are obviously talking about some entity still called Hamas in this deal.

Hamas is talking to Qatar.

They are in the deal.

Israel is treating them like an entity.

What is Hamas

now?

What is their expected role going forward?

What kind of power do they hold and not hold?

So first, the objective of completely defeating Hamas was never a realistic objective.

It was a recipe for endless war, which is why it was stated as such.

There was never any prospect of completely defeating Hamas, and I think the Israelis must have known that.

What is Hamas today?

I mean, of course, they have to account for the fact that they are the ones who led to this, I mean, through their action,

that it provoked this absolute catastrophe for the Palestinians and to this barbaric war that Israel waged.

But they're still there.

And just look at the pictures in Gaza today, who are the ones who are ensuring law and order.

In fact, President Trump himself has said that he's given a green light to Hamas to play this role because no other party in Gaza can do it.

So however weakened Hamas is, and this was always going to be the case from October 7th onwards, no matter what was going to happen, at the end of the day, the most powerful party, it could be weaker than it was before, but relative to others, the most powerful party was going to be Hamas.

And, you know, think of who the other Palestine actors are.

Where was the Palestinian Authority?

Where was Fatah in the negotiations over the deal that we were just discussing?

They were there as bystanders, commenting from afar and then coming to the ceremony at the end to applaud a deal that they had nothing to do with.

So, again, Hamas has real problems because it's going to have to explain to its people how it planned this to provoke Israel, but it didn't have any plan to deal with the inevitable reaction to that provocation.

But in terms of its presence on the ground, in terms of its influence with regional parties, Qatar and Turkey, they're still there and they're still standing.

Hussein, where has the Palestinian Authority and Fatah been during this period?

I mean, this has been the period probably in my lifetime of the most attention to Israel, to Palestinians, their social media.

There has been just absolute endless waves of attention.

And the PA has, from what I can tell, had been quite quiet compared to what I think would have been possible.

Why have they appeared so weak and reactive in this period?

The PA has been weak and reactive for a long time.

In 1982, Sharon decided to destroy the PLO by invading Lebanon.

The PLO was decimated in Lebanon and they left to Tunis.

In no time, they finished up being in Ramallah and Gaza and Jericho.

Since then, they've been torn between continuing to be a liberation movement or a government.

They were not primed to be a government.

They are not interested in governing.

And therefore, they have, on the whole, failed in governing.

There was one aspect only for which Israel kept on the PA going, which is the security coordination.

Keeping the security in the West Bank and Gaza through Israel became too costly.

for Israel.

So it needed to branch out and find somebody who's acceptable to the local population to take care of that matter.

And so the PA played that role.

And the PA was never in a position in the war in Gaza where it could have done anything else besides the way it behaved.

As a matter of fact, even in areas it controls, it's not being able to defend.

its people against Israeli incursions, against settler incursions, and against all kind of activities that threaten threaten it.

They don't have the capacity, the capability, or the mandate by the rest of the world to do that.

Because if they do that, then automatically they become less

useful for the world that wants to have a Palestinian address that is docile.

If I could add, just, you know, if you look at it, the PA is one of Israel's most extraordinary accomplishments.

I mean, here you have an entity that is entirely subservient and dependent on Israel.

Israel from one day to the next could bring it to its knees.

And yet it's an entity upon which Israel can count to finance the occupation.

The EPA is the one that has to raise funds to stay alive and to provide services to its people, which it does to some extent.

And an agent that is a subcontractor for the security cooperation, as Hussein just said.

So it provides security, it maintains the occupation, it finances the occupation, and it is entirely dependent on the occupier.

That's a setup.

You know, I've studied national liberation movements.

I can't recall one that looks quite like this.

From an Israeli perspective, it worked quite well.

Well, doesn't that go to the, I believe it's Smochritz who said Hamas is an asset and the PA is a liability.

Yeah, I mean, I don't think, I think that Hamas may have been an asset in some respects, the PA an asset in other respects.

I don't think it's true that the PA has been a liability for Israel.

I think, in terms of the occupation, it has allowed Israel to subcontract many of the duties that under international law,

that Israel should normally fulfill, but have been fulfilled by Palestinians who had no independent agency because, again, everything from whether they could move, whether they could continue to survive as a Palestinian entity was dependent and subordinate to Israel's will.

What I understood, Smotrich is saying when he said that, is that if you had a PA

that the international community looked on and that the world looked on and saw it as strong, if Palestinians looked upon it as viable,

that that would be very difficult for Israel.

If there was what gets called in the parlance of this a partner for peace, that would put Israel in a harder position, whereas Hamas, which was understood as an organization that Israel cannot make peace with, justified much of Israel's approach, certainly its approach to Gaza over the years.

A stronger PA, as I understand it, has been considered a problem for Israel.

And yet in this framework that has now been agreed to, the idea is that the PA will be reformed, it will be made more technocratically competent, maybe more like what Salaam Fayyad had made it into some years ago, and then it will eventually be handed over control of Gaza.

And so it certainly seems to me that there's a contradiction at the heart of that, that there's been one Israeli strategy to keep the PA weak and keep Gaza and the West Bank divided.

Now you see this piece of paper that at least says we will make them stronger and then unite the territories under them.

It's part of this that I am quite skeptical of, but I'm curious to hear how you understand it.

That skepticism is totally justified.

And your analysis of the relation between Hamas, PA, and the Smotrich and his Ilk is the correct one.

They want the PA to be strong enough to play some role in controlling security in the West Bank, but not that strong strong for it to be independent.

They want Hamas to be able to run the life of the Gazans, but not go beyond that and go back to pricking Israel every now and then militarily.

So this is the ideal setup for Israel.

To have both these entities

and it is as well important to have them separate and to have them at each other's loggerheads to keep on away the myth of a unit, in their mind, of a united Palestinian people.

Because the united Palestinian people is the only party that can actually negotiate on behalf of the Palestinians for a resolution.

So if the Palestinians are not united amongst themselves, how do you expect them to be united vis-à-vis Israel?

And that is an ideal situation for not just Montridge, for many Israelis.

How has Mahmoud Abbas, who's now 89 years old, who has about as low approval ratings as it is possible for a public figure to hold, and who I think by wide agreement has been ineffective at securing Palestinian goals,

creating governance that people that are proud of?

How has he held on through all this?

How has there not been succession yet?

The importance of Mahmoud Abbas derives from the nature of Palestinian society and its views of its own politics.

Mahmoud Abbas is a historical figure for the Palestinians, perhaps the last of a generation who have been responsible both for the struggle outside and getting back to Palestine and running the show from Palestine.

The Abbas represents Palestinians across the board, the old, the young, the diaspora, even the Palestinians in Israel who look up to him and respect him, the Palestinians in the West Bank and the Palestinians in

Gaza.

He's not powerful.

He put all his eggs in trying to reach a diplomatic resolution with Israel.

He failed, but he has a history of struggle against Israel because he's one of the founders of Fateh.

And Fatrh is the backbone of the PLO and it's the body, the political Palestinian body responsible for the Palestinian being where they are now, which is everybody, including most members of FATA,

will

admit that it's miserable, but they can't go anywhere else because that is the framework, the formal entity through which they operate.

Rob, the obvious way this deal's framework could fall apart is that the deal envisions envisions the disarmament of Hamas.

And already, just in the past couple of days, we saw a Hamas sniper shoot an Israeli soldier.

We saw Israel bomb a building in response.

What happens if Hamas does not disarm?

What is the guarantee of that disarmament?

How do you read that part of the deal, which is, as I understand it, supposed to be the bridge between the ceasefire and something sustainable that involves the international community, eventually involves other forms of Palestinian governance.

I'd go back to what Hussein said at the beginning.

The details of the deal really are not that important.

In a sense, I wonder whether President Trump is aware of the 20 clauses of the deal.

What he cared about and what he achieved so far, more or less, is the end of the slaughter and the release of the prisoners.

And that was something that...

I think at this point, Hamas and Israel were prepared to live with, each for their own reasons.

They had their reasons why this was a deal.

Those elements were acceptable to them.

Israel remains in occupation of about half of Gaza.

Hamas remains on its feet and can still police the streets of Gaza.

Again, something that President Trump himself said he thought was normal.

The next stages, disarming Hamas, bringing in an international stabilization force, bringing in a new technocratic government, Palestinian, full Israeli withdrawal, et cetera, et cetera.

That's where there's divergence, not just between the U.S., Hamas, and Israel, but even neither Hamas nor Israel has an interest in that.

Hamas doesn't want to disarm.

Not clear to me that Israel really wants to see an international stabilization force that would stand as a buffer between them and the Palestinians, therefore restrain their freedom of action, which is a core principle of their security doctrine, and perhaps serve as a precedent for what would happen in the West Bank.

So I think from the stage one, what we are seeing now, to the next stage, is where Hamas and Israel have many, many reasons to object.

And I could add to the list of objections, neither one truly wants to see the Palestinian Authority or a real real Palestinian authority come back into Gaza.

Again, a whole list of things that neither one wants to see.

And they're probably counting on the fact that President Trump's attention span is not going to be that great.

He could chalk this down as another achievement for him.

And that's enough.

He said, I ended the war, you know, a 3,000-year war, whatever he calls it.

And that's good enough, right?

And so he goes to Israel and

he

sings Israel's praises and he sings his praises even more.

And

that may suffice now.

The question is: what other countries, what do Turkey and Qatar do, as Hussein was saying, do they push for more because they want to see more changes on the ground?

Do other countries, does President Trump decide that maybe he wants to achieve even more than he has so far?

But the least common denominator is what we've seen so far.

The end of the fighting, the release of the prisoners, some humanitarian assistance, and that's it.

Well, let's take another moment, Rob, on President Trump here.

The book the two of you wrote is scathingly critical of the way U.S.

presidents have approached deals, frameworks, negotiations before now.

And one place where you

end your analysis is by saying there has been an over-reliance on technocratic rationality.

You talk about Bill Clinton

you know, dismissively saying, I think we're really down to just debating wording and formulations here.

And you argue that this this conflict, to the extent it will ever be resolved, if it will ever be resolved, is not, the resolution will not be rational.

It will not be an equation that balances out land exactly on the two sides.

And in this way, Trump seems to fit

the kind of figure you are talking about better than the people who have come before him.

He doesn't care that much about either the Israelis or the Palestinians.

He would like a Nobel Peace Prize, if anything.

He is not unwilling to use his power against either side.

He is himself unpredictable.

He is himself somewhat irrational.

He is himself driven by emotion and intuition and willing to use leverage when he needs it.

Yes, his attention span is certainly an issue here.

But you could, I think, read your book and then look at that it was Trump who got this deal, not Joe Biden,

and say

maybe Trump is the kind of figure you need to make progress, not because he is a moral or historically informed figure on this, but precisely because the moral and historically informed figures who could have told you every subclause of their 20-point frameworks

have failed in your view in part because they perched it as about these 20-point frameworks.

Trevor Burrus, Jr.: What you said is absolutely right and captures what we say in the book.

And in some sense, and we even say it, you know, President Trump, after years of full outrage from Democratic presidents in particular, sort of some genuine cynicism was a breath of fresh air, which is why a lot of Arabs welcomed his coming into office a second time, knowing, as they well knew, his bias towards Israel and everything he had done in his first term.

And I think to add to your list of attributes, if that's the word of President Trump, he also is immune to the laws of American political gravity.

I mean, we've seen it.

Who's going to criticize him if he puts pressure on Israel?

Or if he talks to Hamas?

He sent Steve Witkoff and Jaron Kushner to talk to them.

He claimed that he spoke to them, which I doubt, but in any event, he could very well do it.

Because who's going to criticize him?

Not the Republican Party, because they are locked behind him.

And Democrats criticizing him from that he's being too tough on Israel or too soft on the Palestinians.

That wouldn't fly either.

So he really has the ability to do things that others wouldn't.

And as you say, he's not.

wedded to text.

As I said, I don't think he's read his own 20 points.

He's a politician of intuition.

Now,

having said all that, you know, I wish that all those unconventional, unorthodox attributes were married to something more than narcissism and ego.

And I think that's where we may run into a much bigger problem because, you know, with President Trump, who knows what tomorrow will bring.

But the kind of

break he represents from the past is something that was needed.

I'm not sure that he's the break I would have chosen if I'd had my brothers.

A warm dinner, a full table, peace of mind for every family.

That's the holiday we all wish for.

Your donation to Feeding America helps make it possible, not just for one family, but for communities everywhere.

Because when we act together, hope grows.

Give now and your impact may be doubled.

Visit feedingamerica.org slash holiday.

Brought to you by Feeding America and the Ed Council.

Mass General Brigham in Boston is an integrated hospital system that's redefining patient care through groundbreaking research and medical innovation.

Top researchers and clinicians like Dr.

Pamela Jones are helping shape the future of healthcare.

Mass General Brigham is pushing the frontier of what's possible.

Scientists collaborating with clinicians, clinicians pushing forward research.

I think it raises the level of care completely.

To learn more about Mass General Brigham's multidisciplinary approach to care, go to nytimes.com slash mgb.

That's nytimes.com slash mgb.

Don't just imagine a better future.

Start investing in one with betterment.

Whether it's saving for today or building wealth for tomorrow, We help people in small businesses put their money to work.

We automate to make saving simpler.

We optimize to make investing smarter.

We build innovative technology backed by financial experts for anyone who's ever said, I think I can do better.

So be invested in yourself.

Be invested in your business.

Be invested in better with betterment.

Get started at betterment.com.

Investing involves risk.

Performance not guaranteed.

Hussein, how do you understand

the role of the incentives here of some of the other key states in the region that could become significant parts of the future.

Towards the end of the book, you both describe the possibility of much more involvement from Jordan.

Certainly, the Biden administration imagined the linchpin of a future here being a deal with Saudi Arabia.

Egypt and Qatar and Turkey are intimately involved in this moment of it.

Describe the power centers here and what the different stakeholders or participants might want.

What's common to what they all want is some kind of stability

and peace in the region.

Because in the past 50 years, the absence of stability and peace has created problems for all the regimes in the region.

So that's the first priority.

Second,

There is a special place for the Palestinians and the Palestinian cause in the hearts of most of the people of the region, the Arab people of the region, the Muslim people of the region.

However, taking that into account does not go as far as them sticking their neck out to try to come out with solutions to this issue.

There's another aspect of it, which is that they all

realize that Israel is an entity that is going to be there and it's not going anywhere.

And they realize that it has certain capabilities that they might want to make use of.

So, in an ideal world, they'd like to be at peace with Israel, to be able to cooperate with Israel, but they know the limitations to that is the poison, if you want to call it poison, of the unresolved Palestinian issue.

The Arabs spent 50 years on the streets, in the trenches,

in formal wars, in informal wars, fighting Israel.

For them to end that conclusively, it takes a lot.

There were some bilateral deals that, as we saw, have worked out.

Sadat and Begin and the Cam David Accord between Egypt and Israel has survived.

The peace between Jordan and Israel has survived.

The Abraham Accords, which are a completely different paradigm that depends on having peace with the Arabs first, and then you move to the Palestinian issue, as opposed to the traditional logic of the only way to peace with the Arabs is through peace with the Palestinians, has on the whole worked as well.

It is under tension now, but it has worked.

So the trick for the Arabs is

maybe they will not articulate it in this way, is if they can combine the Abraham Accords with some track that will lead to the resolution of the Palestinian dimension of the regional scene so that things can stabilize and countries can look after their own particular interests.

So these are the usual kind of trends in the region.

Plus, now for the first time, especially after the so-called Arab Spring, the Saudis find themselves in a unique position of being able to speak on behalf of all the Arabs as opposed to their recent history where they used to be only the leader of one camp against another camp.

Because all the other Arabs are either weak or have their own problems or to a large extent are dependent on Saudi generosity for them to survive, the Saudis have a unique opportunity to play the role of a leader of the whole Arab nation.

They're playing it very well.

They have to build a domestic model that is attractive to the rest of the Arabs, the way other contenders in the past, like Nasser, like the Baathists, could not do in their countries.

Nasser could not build a model in Egypt that was attractive to most of the Arabs.

The Baathists could not build a model in Iraq and Syria that is attractive.

But the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia is building a model that balances tradition with modernity in a way that

most Arabs

will

understand

and most Arabs would like to be part of.

It has a unique position which is going to actually define the nature of the power structure in the region if it continues along these lines for a long time.

Rob Hussein just mentioned, in glancing, the other big way that the balance of power in the region has changed, which is Iran.

You go back a couple of years, Iran is

understood to be moving towards nuclear capabilities.

It is a sponsor of Hamas.

It's a sponsor of Hezbollah, which is understood to be quite potent and Israelis really feared in real ways or Zehouthis.

And the other way this period has really reshaped the region is

Israel decapitated Hezbollah and it

led and then was able to pull the U.S.

in to strikes on Iran.

I don't think we really understand what those did or did not do to the nuclear program, but they showed that Israel could pull the U.S.

in on its interests there.

And Iran at least looks a lot weaker than it did two years ago or four years ago.

How do you understand either whether or not that's true and given whether or not it's true, what it does or does not change about the path forward?

I mean, there's one level at which it's undeniably true.

Iran had built a security structure that was designed to prevent precisely what happened.

They built up Hezbollah, they built up a proxy network, they built up their own missile program, they built up their own nuclear program, they built up ties with Russia and China, which was all of which were designed to deter the kind of attack that they succumbed to not that long ago.

So something went wrong in their calculation.

Now, I think he would speak to Iranians.

They'd say that's overstated.

Hamas is still alive.

We just spoke about it.

Hezbollah is not disarmed and it's not about to disarm.

Iran is still standing.

The regime is still strong.

As far as I can tell, there's no prospect of it falling in the foreseeable future.

And they could say that they withstood America and Israel.

And they're the only country that actually of the region that directly attacked Israelis.

So that would be their narrative.

And they'd also say on the nuclear front, the uncertainty about what their program is is an asset.

And they're about as far today, if they wanted to, to building a bomb as they were on the eve of the 12-day war.

So that would be their narrative.

Clearly, as I said, I think there's going to have to be some self-reflection on their part because this is not the outcome they wanted.

So on almost every score, they're worse off.

They're still standing.

I think their approach right now is going to be to hunker down.

you know, not give in more, wait for better days.

Now, you ask how that changes the picture.

The one thing that it does change pretty fundamentally is that if you speak now to countries in the Gulf who not long ago were saying their big fear was of Iranian hegemony, you speak to them now and they say, yeah, we're against Iranian hegemony, not because we were against Iran, but because we were against hegemony.

And the fear of a regional hegemon now is no longer Iranian, it's Israeli.

So whatever sort of alliance Israel thought that it could build with these countries against Iran, which is still, you know, we still hear reports that that's, there's still a security cooperation between Israel and Gulf countries.

The Gulf countries are also fearful of what an unbridled, unchecked Israel can do.

You saw the attacks in Doha, but that was just one of a series of steps that Israel has taken that leads officials in Riyadh or in Abu Dhabi or in Doha to say, wait a minute, our goal was not to substitute an Israeli hegemon for an Iranian threat.

Well, that raises a question, Rob, of what Israel has learned or believes it has learned about itself in the last two years.

You go from two and a half years ago before October 7th, Israel has a lot of internal political division.

There are protests in the streets over the judicial reforms, and the country is thinking very little, if at all, about Palestinians.

It is worried about Iran.

It's worried about Hezbollah, but it's not thinking much about Gaza.

After October 7th, the country is traumatized.

It's frightened.

It can't believe this happened.

It can't believe it let this happen.

On my reporting trips and reporting there, the level of fear and insecurity was profound.

Benjamin Netanyahu is considered completely finished, the most failed prime minister in Israeli history.

And over the past year, it seems to me it's gone through an internal revolution again of Israel believing that, if anything, it had underestimated.

its own strength.

Yes, it had become inattentive in defending the border with Gaza, but look what it did to Hezbollah.

Look what it was able to withstand in terms of U.S.

pressure.

Look at what it did in its strikes against Iran.

Look at what it has done in absolutely flattening Gaza.

Look at the Mossad operations it has been able to pull off.

And at least until now, its ability to pull the U.S.

along with it is beyond, I think, what most of us would have thought.

So

how do you understand how this has changed Israeli politics and Israel's understanding of how it should manage its own geopolitical position and might?

So as you know, I mean, the reason we titled the book Tomorrow's Yesterday has in part to do with what you're saying.

Not only there's a big picture, but Israel is back to where it has been in the past, which is this notion that the only thing it could rely on to protect itself is force.

and power and the projection of power.

If it's not enough, you need a projection of more power.

And if mowing the lawn isn't enough, their own philosophy where you mow the lawn every time a threat appears, now you're going to mow everything, including dirt and earth.

You're not going to let anything grow at all.

And that's a philosophy, you know, it's easy to say, oh, it's Netanyahu, it's Ben-Gavir, it's Smotrich.

Again, as we try to illustrate in the book, this is Israel through and through.

It has been in the past, and it's resurfaced now, sort of wall-to-wall, that belief in the security doctrine.

At what point will the Israelis also, because there's another part of their mind, I suspect, that is thinking, well, what are we going to do about the Palestinian question?

Because the Palestinians aren't going anywhere.

And I think, you know, you mentioned the trauma of October 7th, absolutely right.

But right now, what seems to predominate is exactly what you said, a brush with disaster, which then leads to a resurgence of Israeli force and a return to that belief.

And just as we see the Palestinians back to where they were, the Israelis are back to where they were as well.

Hussein, there's been wide reporting that part of Hamas's calculations in launching this attack was the belief that the Palestinian question was being removed, the Palestinians were becoming invisible, that Israel was going to make a deal with the Saudis, you know, with America as an intermediary, and nothing significant would be done.

Hamas launched a murderous attack that provoked the absolute devastation of Gaza, the deaths of around 70,000 people, the destruction of that society functionally.

What they got in return is the wrecking of Israel's image in much of the world.

Many, many people believe that what Israel has done in Gaza is a genocide, including a not small proportion of young American Jews.

You've seen a number of European countries in particular recognize Palestinian statehood.

Is any of that meaningful?

Does that change the situation for Palestinians?

Is Israel vulnerable to external pressure or its image in the world being worse?

Or is that not significant given the interests of the players here?

It's more than meaningful.

It's probably the most powerful meaning of the whole affair.

Don't forget,

with October 7 and the war on Gaza, the whole traditional historical Israeli security doctrine has collapsed.

The security doctrine was based on three elements.

First, you do not allow the war to take place on your own territory.

October 7 showed that that's not the case.

Second, the war has to be short and

finished very quickly.

It did not happen.

Third, the victory has to be decisive.

Again, it did not happen.

And Israel, as you know, relies very much on the thought processes that justify and explain and promote its military actions.

These have gone.

As a result, you find this tension between the political echelon and the military security echelons.

This is one.

Second thing is that through all these military victories that are technical military victories, it has not been able to catch them anywhere.

Iran is still there and it might come back faster than we think.

Hezbollah is not disarmed.

There are no prospects of its disarming.

Hamas is back in Gaza.

And thirdly, and as importantly, as some Israelis are increasingly talking about,

the dependence of the United States has become so vast that it's not very clear to what extent Israel is still a sovereign, independent country.

If after one week of fighting some irregular elements in Gaza, you need to have such a huge influx of American military aid, it makes you wonder, you know, to what extent you are free to do what you want to do.

Without the United States, they will be in a very, very tenuous position, and they don't have a solution for that.

Added to all this, over the past 20, 30 years, they began to make inroads into the non-Palestinian Arab world.

And as a result of their military victories and the achievements and the war in Gaza and 7th of October, all these achievements are

not really as clear as they were and are threatened.

So they have to deal with that as well.

So, you know, you can tell me that militarily the Israelis

hurt Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas, but strategically, they are much more vulnerable than they've ever been in their existence, in their whole existence.

And if you talk to Israelis, you feel that vulnerability.

They have to find a new way.

And that new way has not been defined yet.

I think it'll come because the Israelis are a very dynamic, intelligent people and society.

And they will think eventually to how to get out of this.

But it's not there now.

And that's a major, major blow to the Israeli psyche.

I mean, it makes me think if you put all our conversation together, there's sort of three paradoxes or discrepancies.

Israel at some level has never been more powerful regionally.

I mean, you just described it.

And yet, as Hussein says, both the vulnerability and the prior status, I mean, have never been more ostracized and more condemned by the world.

The Palestinians have never enjoyed, and few liberation movements have ever enjoyed, such universal acclaim, such universal support, you know, the streets of Rome, of London, not to mention the Global South campuses on the United States.

And yet their leadership, their movement has rarely been more adrift and more at a loss without any sense of direction.

And then on the American side, you've rarely had an American president who has had so much power to get things done, as we've seen, so much independence from the laws of political gravity in the U.S.

and yet without a vision of where he wants to bring things.

So on all three sides, you have a discrepancy between huge assets and then huge liabilities and no bank in which to transfer the assets to make up for the liabilities.

And that just means a lot of things could still change, a lot of things could still move because there's so much influx and so much uncertainty.

May I add one more thing?

The rise of genuine anti-Semitism in the world is frightening.

And it is there in ways that it has not been there for a long, long, long time.

You do not know the number of people who have have nothing to do with the Middle East, who have nothing to do with politics, who are flirting with anti-Semitism.

This is a major, major thing that has to be dealt with.

When facts are questioned, when trust falters, when division deepens, look to the leaders and best transforming a public investment into the public good for over two centuries.

The University of Michigan was built for moments like this.

From expanding the boundaries of knowledge to translating research into real-world change, Michigan delivers the solutions the world needs most.

For answers, for action, for all of us, look to Michigan.

See more solutions at umich.edu/slash slash look a warm dinner a full table peace of mind for every family that's the holiday we all wish for your donation to feeding america helps make it possible not just for one family but for communities everywhere because when we act together hope grows give now and your impact may be doubled visit feedingamerica.org slash holiday brought to you by feeding america and the ad council mass General Brigham in Boston is an integrated hospital system that's redefining patient care through groundbreaking research and medical innovation.

Top researchers and clinicians like Dr.

Pamela Jones are helping shape the future of healthcare.

Mass General Brigham is pushing the frontier of what's possible.

Scientists collaborating with clinicians, clinicians pushing forward research.

I think it raises the level of care completely.

To learn more about Mass General Brigham's multidisciplinary approach to care, go to nytimes.com/slash mgb.

That's That's nytimes.com slash mgb.

Let me continue with the financial metaphor, Rob, which is one thing I have wondered is the degree to which Israel is borrowing strength from the future and putting it into the present without really a plan for how to build it back.

And what I mean by that is Hussein mentioned the intense reliance on America.

And America is really, in a way, now Israel's last friend.

There are other transactional relationships, some of them with Gulf states, et cetera.

But America is the key ally of Israel.

And Israel has certainly among young Americans

decimated its political legitimacy.

Not among everyone.

And I know many young Jews who become more Zionist in this period, right?

I don't want to erase complexity, but

the amount of moral legitimacy it held when I was growing up and what it holds now are very different.

And Rob, you've served in a number of Democratic administrations.

And I think what Democrats see when they look at the relationship between Biden and Netanyahu and Israel over the past couple of years is that he absolutely screwed them.

Netanyahu screwed Obama before Biden, and then he screwed.

Biden.

And you have a Democratic Party where the base has become much more pro-Palestinian, much more skeptical of Israel.

And you imagine that four or eight or 12 years into the future during some other crisis or flashpoint with a different constellation of Palestinian leadership.

And where America is in that might be very

different.

And so there seems to me to be a tension between how much

capital Israel spent in the present in terms of its relationship with America and in terms of how Americans and the world see it,

and then what support it will be able to rely on in the future.

I think the hope is that they have just enough material capacity that they don't have to face that.

But if I was thinking about risks to Israel in addition to the anti-Semitism, which affects both Israeli Jews and non-Israeli Jews, that feels very alive to me in the long run.

Yeah, so just first a comment, when you say American presidents that I served have been screwed by Israel, some would say they've been willingly screwed, but that's a different topic.

Yeah, I think you're absolutely right.

But I think, you know, people would understand it's sort of a human trait to say, we're going to do what we can to have as powerful a position as we need today.

And we'll think about the future when it comes.

I mean, we'll live to fight another day.

And so I think other things will change tomorrow.

Maybe there'll be a different leadership in the U.S.

Maybe the Palestinians will do us a favor of some other horrendous attack.

Who knows what will happen?

So I think you're absolutely right.

And if I were an Israeli official or just an Israeli, I'd be very worried about this trend, particularly particularly in the United States, because I think it is a real demographic shift and a generational shift.

We'll see, but that's every indication I get from teaching on campuses.

And so, yeah, I think that they are sacrificing to some extent the future for the sake of the present.

But as I said, I don't think that's specific to Israel.

I think that's sort of a human way of reacting to events.

I do wonder about the reaction that you think will happen among Democratic administrations, or for that matter, among Republican administrations.

This is something I'm more in touch with than I am, you know, public opinion in the Arab world or even in Israel.

And

my

sense is that you're seeing something happening here, not just on campuses.

So younger Republicans, younger Republicans in power, younger staff Republicans are understood to be much less pro-Israel than older Republicans.

You see Tucker Carlson, I think, in many ways almost flirting with anti-Semitism.

You see Charlie Kirk before he was murdered being much more more skeptical of the American relationship with Israel.

There was a real change happening among the younger MAGA-aligned Republican cohorts.

So this is not just a Democratic thing.

And then among younger Democrats, you are seeing a sea change.

I mean, an easy representative of it is Zoran Mamdani, who many young Democrats believe to be the most exciting young Democrat in America, who is very likely to be New York City's next mayor, and conceded recently that he would let Zionists serve in his administration, right?

The idea of somebody saying something like that in American politics would have been unthinkable just a couple of years ago.

And meanwhile, huge numbers of young Jews I know in New York are enthusiastically supporting him.

So in terms of the people staffing these administrations, in terms of the people who will be, you know, writing the briefs and eventually moving up into positions of being a congressman, a senator, et cetera, it feels very different on both sides to me.

More so, again, than in any time I can remember.

Aaron Powell, Jr.: 100%.

I feel exactly the same way.

I think the question is

how sustained this is and how much staying power it has.

So to take the Democratic side, I think you're seeing on the part of former Biden officials a rethinking or amongst some of them about, you know, did they make mistakes during the Gaza war?

And people who at the time were never prepared to envisage withholding military aid are now saying it.

Is that because they are genuinely convinced of it or because they could read the politics?

Who knows?

And I think the test for that part of the Democratic Party is going to be if and when the war ends, you have a different Israeli government, which is not quite as

right-wing as this one.

So maybe Ben-Gavir and Smochich are gone.

Do they then say, okay, we've seen the back of the worst of Israel, but now we're going to go back to our old ways and turn a blind eye to what Israel does in the West Bank and even what it's doing in Gaza, so long as it's not flirting with genocide.

So that would be a test in terms of the establishment.

And I think that's going to depend on whether the young people, the voters, turn this into a wedge issue, an issue on which, you know, sort of like Iraq, this is how we're going to test officials.

And I don't know because I don't know how important it's going to be to voters.

Is this going to be the litmus test or is it going to be what position you took on the shutdown or healthcare or something else?

On the Republican side, and I've just only recently started to meet with some of the MAGA folks who feel this way, it's not as strong, it's not as widespread, but in some ways it's more intrinsic to their identity because it doesn't come from sort of a humanitarian impulse about Palestinians.

It's about America first, which is really what part of the MA movement is about.

So I completely agree with you.

Some of them, it's obnoxious anti-Semitism that is there.

But for others, it's a very simple question.

Why should the United States subcontract its policy, provide $3.8 billion a year and even more, if you count what we've done since October 7th, to Israel and be dragged into wars by Israel when all of our effort and all of our attention should be on what's happening at home.

So I think on both sides for very different reasons, it's sort of transpartisan.

But like you, I can't but observe that there's, you know, compared to when I was on the same campus I'm teaching on now, things that are being said, things that are being thought would have been completely out of the question 30, 40 years ago or 10 years ago.

Hussein, we can largely understand the way that American political leadership will change in the coming years, or at least we hope we can.

We can

understand how Israeli elections will be held and the set of players within that.

You know, will it be Naptali Bennett?

Will Benjamin Netanyahu hold on?

Right now, the question of

how does Palestinian leadership emerge, reformulate itself?

Is it still even under the structures we have come to see it under?

That feels very opaque.

I mean, as we mentioned, Abbas is 89, just physically.

He cannot hold on forever.

It's not at all clear what happens in terms of Gazan leadership.

I've seen many pieces and statements from people in Gaza who want to be able to build leadership out of an organic process.

Obviously, Israel and the U.S.

have not currently been supportive of that.

How do you imagine the next structure of Palestinian leadership either looking or even just emerging and forming?

Tomorrow is yesterday.

What is happening in Palestine and the Palestinians is that they're going back, being adrift, not being unified, not having a clear kind of process of leadership, not having a program, not having objectives, trying to find their way back into some kind of structure that they have lost and they have not been able to replace with anything.

They're not happy with the kind of

activities or policies that Hamas represents.

They're not happy with the policies of Fatih, but they do not have alternative policies.

There is a kind of civil society that talks the language of the West of transparency, accountability, democracy, liberalism, but they have no resonance amongst the majority of the people.

So we are back where we started.

It reminds me very much of the period between 1948 and 1965.

Between 48 and 1965, the Palestinians were completely lost.

And the lost Palestinians,

through some magical process, they produced the PLO.

And from there on, the PLO set the pace and the nature of their political path.

Right now, they are back being lost.

We do not know what is this new body that will emerge, if it's a body, what kind of leaders will emerge, if they are actual leaders.

Will they be from the diaspora, where the majority of the Palestinians live?

Will they be from the West Bank?

Will they be from Gaza?

Or will they be, which has a good chance, Israeli Arabs or Israeli Palestinians, who seem to be much more dynamic politically than the rest of the societies.

So we are in a period of flux, the outcome of which is totally not only unpredictable,

even

the options are not there.

Rob, when I look at this framework and I listen to you describe it, it seems very possible to me that after all of this, we will end up in what will be for Gazins a post-apocalyptic version of what reigned before, in which Hamas is functionally in control, when Hamas

is seen to pose some threat to Israel, Israel attacks, mows the grass in the way the Israelis speak of it, that

there is nothing on the other side of this after all this death, after all this destruction, that looks all of that different.

It's the same players engaged in some way

in the same dance.

Listen, I think that's extremely possible, maybe even probable.

Hussein and I described it recently as going from the absolute hell that was the war to the mere nightmare of where we are today and where we've been in the past and where Gazans have been in the past.

So a vast refugee camp with people who've been refugees once, twice, sometimes three times over, without being kept alive through international humanitarian assistance, and the Palestinian issue in Gaza being reduced to a security problem that Israel tries to deal with, and a humanitarian problem that the world deals with, but not a political problem that needs to be resolved.

And at this point, all things being equal, I think that's the most likely outcome.

It's going to be now a matter of whether the countries that have an influence on President Trump and President Trump himself decide whether that's a status that they could live with or whether it needs to be something better.

Then, as we come to a close here, the book, The Two of You Wrote Together, it is really a history of failure.

It is a history of deals and processes you've both been often involved in that have had high hopes around them and come to naught.

We are clearly entering a period in which another series of political leaders, Tony Blair, Jared Kushner, Donald Trump, et cetera, are going to at least make some attempt at another process.

If they came to you for advice,

if they said, just tell me what not to do this time,

what would both of you tell them?

Starting with you, Rob.

I mean, that's a tough one because at this point, I think there is really no clear blueprint.

I mean, the best advice, I guess, is what you're referring to, which is what not to do and not to replicate the ways of the past, which I think they're unlikely to do in any event, but not to simply decide, as we see some people doing, jumping to the next shiny object, which is let's try to revive the two-state solution, let's try to revive negotiations between the two sides.

It hasn't worked, and it hasn't worked for 30 years on the much, much more auspicious circumstances that

we see today.

And so we have to discard all of the formulas, all of the plans that people may come up with, however tempting they may be and however well-meaning some of their authors are, some are less so.

You know, in the case of the two-state solution and the pursuit of peace, it's not a couple of mishaps.

It's decade after decade after decade, not just of mishap, but of failures that have led to the catastrophe, the horrors of October 7th, and of what followed, because it's not as if October 7th and then the war that Israel waged on Gaza afterwards are disconnected from what came before.

They're the logical consequence of those failures, of the pursuit of an illusion, and of the quieting of any alternative in the name of that illusion, which is we're going to get hard partition on the basis of two states, which neither Israelis nor Palestinians continue to believe in after some time.

So that's, I mean, I don't think they need to hear it from me, but I think that kind of the reflex to go down to plans, whether it's 20, 30, 40 points, and let's just apply to the two sides.

I think at this stage, it really is a matter of the deep emotions of the two sides, which have been exacerbated by what the last two years, coming to terms with those, breaking convention, talking to all sides, again, not just the

sides that we're comfortable with, the ones who parrot our words and who dress that we dress, and I speak about Americans, but there's going to be...

Islamists and there's going to be refugees and there's going to be settlers and there's going to be religious Zionists.

It's not going to be a quick solution.

There's probably not even going to be a a solution at this point.

It's going to be some form of coexistence between the two sides until they themselves could work out a better future.

But, you know, tabula raza of the past and try to think of a way forward, breaking convention, being prepared to put pressure on both sides and being prepared to talk to all.

I think they could do worse than to follow that advice.

Hussein?

The first thing you have to do is you have to completely forget about reason and rationality when you deal with this region.

The Western ways of doing things do not hold, and they have no resonance amongst the inhabitants of this part of the world.

It's messy, and you have to be ready for this messiness by not trying to straitjacket it into neat kind of resolutions because the resolutions are neat in your mind.

Because in the nature of the reality of this region, you have to look for clarity in the confusion and not deny the confusion and not believe that there are simple kind of quick fixes to the problem you are facing.

It's not a matter of lines on maps.

It's not a matter of convincing people of what's good for them or what's not good for them.

So, if I were you,

forget it, forget it for some time.

And I think the person who successfully has done that at this stage, for how long I don't know, is President Trump, because he's not resorting to pure reason.

He's willing to change his view at the drop of a hat or a coin or whatever you want to drop.

He's willing to adjust to realities.

He's willing to talk to people who, for decades, were deemed to be terrorists and

completely non-kosher.

And these are the kind of ways that work in the region.

Unfortunately, the cadre in the West that deals with these matters, with the exception of Trump, unfortunately, again, the people around Trump, I do not know how much they're interested in the region.

They're interested in the security of Israel, maybe, but beyond that, I do not think they know very much about the societal elements in the region.

The one side who knows how to deal with all this, I think, in the future will probably be the Russians and the Chinese.

I'm not very optimistic.

And then always our final question.

What are three books you recommend to the audience?

Rob?

Three books, well, actually four, if I can, but one book that has everything to do with what we've been discussing and whose, I think its title alone deserves a prize is One Day Everyone Will Always Have Been Against This by Omar al-Akad.

A second book that doesn't appear to have much to do with our discussion, but actually really does.

It's about Northern Ireland, the dilemmas of struggle and justice, and what one kills and dies for, and that's Say Nothing by Patrick Redd and Keefe.

And then, if I may, a pair of books that not only appear to have nothing to do with what we've been discussing, but they're also fictional.

They're two plays in kind of conversation with each other, and yet they too have everything to do with the subtext of what we've been talking about and the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, the price of loyalty, of conviction and justice, Dirty Hands by Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus' The Just Assassins, which are two plays that, as I say, are in conversation with one another and are wonderful reads.

Hussein?

I don't read much contemporary stuff.

Even better.

I rely mostly on classics.

So therefore, I'm going to suggest a rereading of Thucydides' The Peloponnesian Wars that explain to you really very accurately very much of the processes that are taking place now.

They will explain to you the nature of democracy, the nature of power, the nature of leadership, in ways that no contemporary book does.

The other book that I will recommend is The Man Without Qualities by Robert Musil.

The beauty of that book is it's a satire that crystallizes all the themes and the issues of today in ways that other books that are more analytical do not.

The third book for comic relief is

a book that I enjoy reading every now and then, even though it's debunked and everybody says it's nonsense, is Kenneth Anger's Hollywood Babylon.

I find that

very kind of,

how should I say, amusing.

It's a very funny book, and I think Kenneth Anger is very underrated.

That is definitely the first recommendation of Hollywood Babylon on the show.

I will say that for it.

Rob Bally, Hussein Aga, thank you very much.

Thank you, Ezra.

Thank you.

This episode of the Ezra Clown Show is produced by Annie Galvin.

Fact-checking by Michelle Harris and Jack McCordick.

Our senior audio engineer is Jeff Geld with additional mixing by Isaac Jones.

Our executive producer is Claire Gordon.

The show's production team also includes Marie Cassione, Roland Hu, Marina King, Kristen Lynn, Emma Kelbeck, and Jan Koble.

Original music by Marion Lozano, Dan Powell, and Pat McCusker.

Audience strategy by Christina Simoluski and Shannon Busta.

The director of New York Times Opinion Audio is Annie Rose Strasser.

Special thanks to Chris Wood and Ashley Clivery.

A warm dinner, a full table, peace of mind for every family.

That's the holiday we all wish for.

Your donation to Feeding America helps make it possible, not just for one family, but for communities everywhere.

Because when we act together, hope grows.

Give now and your impact may be doubled.

Visit feedingamerica.org/slash holiday.

Brought to you by Feeding America and the Ad Council.