Introduction

Palestinian women in Gaza are subjected to overlapping forms of violence by Israel that converge into a single, coherent structure of domination. Starvation, sexual and gender-based violence, and reproductive violence do not occur as isolated abuses, but as an interlocking system enacted simultaneously and reinforcing one another. These practices operate across psychological, social, and biological dimensions of harm. While Palestinian women’s bodies are the immediate site of this violence, its intended target is Palestinian society as a whole. By systematically targeting women, Israel undermines collective survival, erodes social cohesion, and attacks the continuity of Palestinian life itself. Taken together, these practices constitute a gendered architecture of genocide that must be recognized and addressed as such.

The Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy (MIFTAH) has documented these three crimes throughout Israel’s genocide in Gaza. Firsthand testimonies collected from the Gaza Strip and the occupied West Bank reveal the distinctly gendered impacts of these violations and their cumulative effects on Palestinian women.

I. Sexual and Gender-Based Violence

Sexual and gender-based violence is systematically instrumentalized by Israel as a means of humiliating and isolating Palestinian women while dismantling family and community bonds. These violations should not be understood as isolated or aberrational incidents, but rather as part of a broader historical pattern in which sexual violence has been deployed as a tool of terror and social control against the Palestinian population.

Historical records document that during the 1948 ethnic cleansing of historic Palestine, Zionist paramilitary forces including the Haganah engaged in acts of sexual violence alongside mass killings and expulsions of Palestinians. The Haganah later became the institutional foundation of the contemporary Israeli military. This historical continuity underscores how sexual violence has long functioned as a weapon of war, embedded within military practices aimed at terrorizing civilians and facilitating population displacement.

Testimonies collected by MIFTAH fieldworkers across the West Bank and Gaza Strip reveal recurring patterns. Arrests conducted in family homes routinely transform domestic spaces into sites of domination. Soldiers storm houses, often in the middle of the night, restrain family members, destroy personal belongings, steal valuables, and dictate all movement within the home. Male relatives are frequently forced to witness or participate in the abuse of female family members, a tactic designed to emasculate men and dismantle the household from within.

Sexual violence also functions as a form of psychological torture in Israeli detention and interrogation settings. Alongside sleep deprivation, starvation, and physical assault, sexual violence is deliberately employed to induce psychological breakdown and assert total control. Testimonies describe forced strip searches, removal of hijabs, invasive bodily touching, slut-shaming, and explicit threats of rape against detainees or their relatives . Testimonies collected by the Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) describe in detail the systematic use of secual torture in Israeil detention settings. Sexual violence is further enacted through blackmail, including the use of nude or indecent photographs taken during interrogation to coerce compliance or enforce silence. These practices aim to strip women of dignity, break them psychologically prior to or during interrogation, and inflict lasting harm that weakens their sense of self long after release.

The full extent of sexual violence against Palestinian women today remains difficult to quantify, as survivors rarely disclose sexual assault or rape causing underreporting to be widespread. This silence reflects structural, legal, and social barriers rather than the absence of abuse. Palestinian survivors of violence perpetrated by Israeli soldiers or settlers seldom pursue legal avenues due to the well-documented lack of accountability within Israeli law enforcement mechanisms, where investigations rarely result in prosecution or redress .

Social stigma also plays a role in silencing survivors. In a predominantly conservative social context, sexual violence carries stigma that extends beyond the survivor to her family and community. Israeli forces exploit this reality deliberately, using sexual violence and threats to women’s “honor” as mechanisms of coercion, intimidation, and social fragmentation. In this way, sexual violence operates not only as an assault on individual women, but as a strategic instrument of collective harm.

II. Reproductive Violence

Reproductive violence targets women’s capacity to give life through the systematic destruction of healthcare systems, maternity services, and the material conditions necessary for survival. It refers to deliberate actions intended to impair an entire population’s ability to reproduce and sustain itself. In Gaza, reproductive violence is not incidental to armed conflict; it is enacted through policy-driven destruction that reflects intentionality rather than collateral harm.

This violence is carried out through the systematic targeting of life-sustaining infrastructure, including hospitals, maternity wards, neonatal units, fertility clinics, and embryo preservation centers, as well as the blockade of medicines, medical equipment, and hygiene supplies. The consequences are visible in rising maternal mortality, increased miscarriages linked to malnutrition and extreme stress, untreated reproductive infections, and the repeated displacement of pregnant women seeking care within a collapsing healthcare system .

These measures directly undermine women’s ability to safely conceive, carry pregnancies to term, give birth, and raise children. Women’s reproductive health is further compromised by the deliberate obstruction of humanitarian aid and the collapse of sanitation and water infrastructure. The destruction of healthcare facilities, combined with ongoing bombardment and repeated displacement, has rendered movement dangerous and unpredictable, making access to medical care nearly impossible and severely limiting the ability of humanitarian organizations to provide reproductive and maternal health services.

As a result, there has been a sharp increase in preventable reproductive health complications. Women report rising cases of fever linked to untreated vaginal infections caused by inadequate hygiene and the absence of feminine hygiene products, as well as unnecessary hysterectomies . Women using intrauterine devices experience prolonged bleeding and infections due to unsanitary living conditions, yet no options for safe removal currently exist in Gaza, posing serious long-term risks to reproductive health and bodily integrity . Women have also been forced to undergo emergency hysterectomies to control excessive post- partum bleeding that could not be managed due to the lack of healthcare.

Reproductive violence in Gaza is therefore both biological and symbolic. It constitutes an assault on the present population and on the possibility of future generations. The objective of preventing Palestinian continuity is further evidenced by the sustained and disproportionate killing of children, who have consistently been the most targeted demographic group throughout the genocide. This killing is reinforced by an ideological framework that dehumanizes Palestinian women and children. Public statements by Israeli political and military officials have repeatedly framed the killing of women and children as militarily justified . Within this logic, women are targeted not for their actions, but for their reproductive capacity and their role in sustaining Palestinian continuity. Such rhetoric has informed and legitimized military operations in Gaza. Throughout the genocide, civilian spaces including schools, homes, and hospitals, have been deliberately targeted as a matter of state policy. These are precisely the spaces where women and children sought refuge. The systematic killing and endangerment of women and children is not a secondary effect of warfare but a central component of the broader genocidal strategy.

III. Starvation as a Weapon of Genocide

Another grave factor to the reproductive health of women in Gaza has been starvation. Prolonged malnutrition, combined with physical exhaustion, repeated displacement, and lack of healthcare infrastructure, have contributed to increased miscarriages, loss of amniotic fluid, and heightened maternal mortality . Numerous women have reported using prenatal supplements distributed by humanitarian organizations as meal substitutes for themselves or their families, or exchanging them for food and essential supplies. Breastfeeding has become increasingly difficult due to suppressed milk production associated with undernourishment, while infant formula remains largely inaccessible, placing newborns at heightened risk. Chronic stress and nutritional deprivation have also resulted in amenorrhea, fertility complications, and potential long-term reproductive harm.

For women in Gaza, starvation functions not only as a form of biological deprivation but as a structural assault on familial roles, social reproduction, and dignity. It undermines women’s capacity to fulfill caregiving responsibilities, destabilizes family life, and produces severe physical, reproductive, and psychological consequences. Women disproportionately experience the embodied impacts of hunger while simultaneously carrying the emotional labor associated with sustaining children and dependent family members.

Testimonies collected by MIFTAH from displaced women subjected to Israel’s forced starvation consistently begin with descriptions of pre-displacement life, including homes, employment, family routines, and domestic spaces. The loss of the home, particularly the kitchen, emerges as a recurrent theme, reflecting the erosion of women’s agency and identity. The destruction of homes and domestic spaces traditionally associated with women’s autonomy has contributed to a marked erosion of dignity and self-perception. Reported symptoms include anxiety, insomnia, hair loss, emotional dysregulation, and post-traumatic stress, with many women suppressing their own distress to maintain caregiving roles.

Repeated displacement has further exacerbated women’s vulnerability. Multiple forced relocations have resulted in the loss of personal possessions, kinship networks, and community-based support systems. Overcrowded shelters lack adequate privacy, sanitation, and safety, compelling women to manage childcare and food preparation under unsafe and degrading conditions. Everyday survival practices are thus shaped by constant exposure to risk and instability.

For women who serve as the primary caretakers of their families, providing for loved ones often comes at great personal risk. They are frequently reducing or skipping their own meals so that their children can eat, often continuing caregiving responsibilities despite severe physical exhaustion . In displacement, they prepare rudimentary meals using limited ingredients and improvised methods, such as cooking lentils over burning toxic materials like plastic. These practices function both as survival strategies and as efforts to maintain a sense of continuity and stability for children amid profound disruption. In these contexts, women disproportionately bear the responsibility of caring for sick, injured, or disabled family members, despite acute shortages of medical care, clean water, and shelter. Overcrowding and unsanitary conditions contribute to widespread illness, while attempts to obtain food or humanitarian assistance expose women and children to ongoing risks of injury or death.

Starvation has additionally intensified gendered pressures within households. Men’s inability to secure food or protection has been associated with increased psychological distress, thereby expanding women’s emotional and caregiving responsibilities. For women whose spouses have been killed, detained, or disappeared, starvation enforces sole provider roles under conditions that systematically undermine the possibility of survival.

Conclusion

MIFTAH has documented violations of sexual violence, reproductive violence, and starvation at various points during the genocide in Gaza. These violations, however, do not occur in isolation; they operate simultaneously, reinforcing and amplifying one another as part of a single system of control. Sexual violence isolates women from themselves and alienates them within their communities. Reproductive violence deliberately targets women because of their childbearing roles. Starvation acts as both a biological and psychological assault. Taken together, these crimes compound one another, deepening harm and undermining the survival of Palestinian women and their communities. A single woman may experience all three forms of violence, being violated in detention, displaced and denied healthcare, and later starved while unable to feed her children. Together, these crimes transform daily life into a persistent site of punishment. They attack the Palestinian female spirit, disrupt women’s societal roles, and, in doing so, fracture society across generations, making recovery increasingly difficult.

The failure to confront these violations reflects a long colonial history, in which the rhetoric of “saving women” was used to justify empire while violence against women perpetrated by colonial powers was silenced or dismissed. To resist normalization and impunity, these crimes must be recognized and addressed as mutually reinforcing acts of genocide. Understanding these violations as an interconnected system of oppression is essential to grasp their full impact on Palestinian society. These gendered crimes are not about women alone; they aim to dismantle the foundations of Palestinian life. Women are targeted not only as individuals but as mothers, community anchors, and bearers of generational continuity, while Palestinian society is systematically weakened and broken at its core.

Sources and References

Executive Summary

On 17 November 2025, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 2803, establishing a new governance framework for Gaza. The resolution endorses U.S. President Donald Trump’s Comprehensive Plan to End the Gaza Conflict (CPEGC) and the creation of a transitional international administration through a U.S.-led Board of Peace (BoP) and authorizes an International Stabilization Force (ISF). Rather than ensuring Palestinian sovereignty, this framework transfers control of Gaza’s civil administration, security, reconstruction, borders, and humanitarian aid to external actors, entrenching foreign oversight and further consolidating Israeli dominance over the occupied Palestinian territory.

This resolution raises grave legal and political concerns. It departs from foundational principles of international law and undermines the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination. By providing no mechanisms for accountability for Israel’s documented violations, offering no concrete safeguards for Palestinian rights, and presenting an undefined framework with no clear timeline or benchmarks, Resolution 2803 risks perpetuating systemic injustices, enabling a reconfigured form of occupation, and further entrenching the colonial-style control already in place.

To view the Full Policy Paper as PDF

Executive Summary

The outbreak of famine in the Gaza Strip has been a deliberate, man-made policy pursued by the Israeli government as part of its genocide. In August 2025, famine was declared by the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) for the first time in the region.

Evidence gathered by MIFTAH through sworn testimonies from women and girls demonstrates that starvation in Gaza is not an unintended by-product of war, but a deliberate and systematic policy used to subjugate and besiege the civilian population.

MIFTAH’s report, “Famine and the Violation of the Right to Food,” outlines the intersection of starvation, displacement, and bombardment, highlighting the gender-specific impacts these practices have on women. It situates the famine within the framework of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and acts of genocide under international law. Article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Rome Statute defines as a war crime the act of “intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including willfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions.” The report also shows how the militarization of humanitarian aid and the manipulation of financial systems have turned basic survival into a tool of political coercion against Palestinians, especially women.

To view the Full Policy Paper as PDF

THERE WAS this Israeli man who from time to time put a slip of paper in the cracks between the stones of the Western Wall, asking God for favors - as Jews have been doing for centuries. They believe that the gates of heaven are located directly above the Wall, making it easy for their missives to arrive quickly.

The man always wondered what all the other petitioners were requesting from the Almighty. One night his curiosity got the better of him. In the wee hours of the morning he stole to the Wall, extracted all the pieces of paper and checked them. All of them were stamped “Request Denied”.

This joke is typical for the attitude of a great many Israelis towards the edifice that every few months or so sets off a political and religious pandemonium.

NOW IT is happening again. A group of feminist Jewish women (mostly of American origin, of course) insists on praying at the Wall clad in praying shawls (talith) and wearing phylacteries (tefillin). They are physically attacked by the orthodox, the police have to restrain them, the Knesset and the courts intervene.

Why? According to Jewish religious law, women are not allowed to wear praying shawls, and certainly not phylacteries, which orthodox men put on their brow and forearm. They are not allowed to mingle with men at the holiest place of Judaism.

The part of the Wall set aside for prayer is about 60 meters long. 12 meters are reserved for women, separated by a low divide.

It seems that most religions are obsessed with sex. They assume that if a religious male sees a woman, whatever her age and looks, he is aroused and cannot think about anything else. So, logically, women must be hidden away.

The “Women of the Wall”, many of whom are not religious at all, want to break the taboo by provocation. So there you are.

TWO YEARS before the birth of Israel, I went to look at the Western Wall for the first time . It was a moving experience.

To get to the place, you had to pass through a maze of narrow Arab alleys. In the end you found yourself in a narrow enclave, about three meters wide. To your left was the Wall – an awe-inspiring monumental structure, consisting of huge rocks. To see the top you had to lean back and look towards heaven.

On your other side was a much lower wall, behind which the ancient, poverty stricken Mugrabi (Maghribi, Moroccan) Quarter was lodged.

Very few people know – or care to know – that this enclosure did not come into being by accident. In 1516 Jerusalem was conquered by the rising world power, the Ottoman Empire, which was at the time one of the most modern and progressive states. Soon after, Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent built the – well, magnificent – wall of Jerusalem, as it stands today, a hugely expensive work which testifies to the immense devotion of the Ottoman Turks to this remote town in their realm. Suleiman’s chief architect was Sinan, who also designed the Damascus Gate, which many people (including myself) consider the most beautiful structure in the entire country.

The benevolent Sultan instructed Sinan to set aside a special place of worship for the Jews in the town, so the architect created this enclosure at the Western Wall (not to be confused with the city wall). To make the wall more towering, he lowered the floor of the alley and put up the parallel low wall cutting it off from the surroundings. (Anyone interested in this history would be well advised to read the book “Jerusalem” by Karen Armstrong, a British ex-nun and historian.)

Legend has it that when the city wall, with all its 34 towers and seven gates, was finished in 1541, the Sultan was so overcome by its beauty the he had the architect killed. He did not want him to build anything else to compete with it.

UNTIL THEN, the Western Wall was not the main praying place for Jews.

Pilgrims from all over the world came to Jerusalem and prayed at the top of the Mount of Olives, overlooking the Temple Mount. But this holy place had become unsafe, because while the preceding Mamluk Empire was crumbling, roaming Bedouins had been robbing the pilgrims. Also, for the local Jews, who lived side by side with the Muslims in the town, the Western Wall was much nearer to their homes. So the holy place on the Mount of Olives was abandoned. Today, a luxury hotel stands there.

Since then, the Western Wall remains the holiest place in the world for the Jews, a place where multitudes assemble on holy days, army units swear allegiance to the State of Israel, rich Jews from all over the world bring their sons for Bar Mitzva and the Women of the Wall are kicking up the latest ruckus.

But basically there is nothing holy about the Wall. It was built by King Herod, a great builder and bloody monster, who was not even a real Jew. He belonged to the people of Edom, who had only recently been forcibly converted to Judaism. I doubt whether the present Chief Rabbinate would have recognized him as a Jew and have allowed him to enter the country, marry a Jewish woman or be buried in a Jewish cemetery.

Contrary to common belief, it was not a part of the Temple Herod built. To create the large platform on which the Temple stood, (and on which now stand the magnificent Dome of the Rock and the al-Aqsa mosque) he had to bring in a lot of earth and raise the floor. To hold this mass together, he built a wall around it. The Western Wall is nothing but a remnant of this supporting wall.

WHEN THE Israeli army conquered East Jerusalem in the June 1967 War, one of the state's first acts was an outrage. At the time, the mayor of West Jerusalem was Teddy Kollek, a convinced atheist. But he was quick to realize the political and touristic significance of the place and ordered the immediate expulsion of the entire population of the adjoining Mugrabi Quarter, some 650 Muslim human beings. He then razed the whole quarter to the ground.

I happened to be in the Old City of Jerusalem on that day, and I will never forget the sights – especially the tear-covered face of a 13-year old girl carrying a large cupboard on her back.

On the site of the destroyed quarter, a huge empty space was created. This is now the Western Wall piazza, resembling a huge parking lot, which attracts tourists and prayer-shawl-wearing women. It faces the Western Wall, which has completely lost its awe-inspiring character and now looks like just another large wall.

The late Professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz, an orthodox Jew, called it the Diskotel (kotel means wall). He was full of praise for the Wahhabis, a fundamentalist Sunni sect which, upon conquering Mecca, immediately destroyed the tomb of the prophet Muhammad, claiming that revering stones as holy places was nothing but idolatry. They would surely have condemned the Western Wall rabbis as rabid pagans.

In the Jewish myth, the burial site of Moses is unknown, so it could not become a site for adulation.

It must be mentioned to Kollek’s credit that he prevented another outrage. After the destruction of the Mugrabi Quarter, David Ben-Gurion, by that time a simple member of the Knesset, demanded that the entire Old City Wall be also razed to the ground. In the newly united Jewish capital, he asserted, there was no place for a Turkish wall. Kollek, a former chief assistant to Ben-Gurion, calmed the old man down.

MANY ISRAELIS believe that the Western Wall should be declared a secular national monument, irrespective of its religious connotations. But the State of Israel declared it a holy place and put it under the sole jurisdiction of the Chief Rabbinate. Bad for the Wall Women.

Lately, Nathan Sharansky has proposed a compromise: clear an additional space near the wall and allow everybody – man or woman, with or without prayer shawl, and presumably straight or gay or Lesbian – to pray there. The Egg of Columbus.

(Sharansky, the former much admired rebel against the KGB in the Soviet Union and later a failed politician in Israel, has been secured a sinecure as chief of the Jewish Agency, an anachronistic institution mainly occupied with raising money for the settlers.)

The rabbis may accept the compromise or they may not. The women may be allowed to pray without risking arrest or not. But the real question is why the state gave complete control over this place, that is so important to so many people, to the orthodox rabbis. After all, they represent a minority in Israel, as well as among the world’s Jews.

The answer may be political, but it touches upon a far more important aspect: the lack of separation between state and religion.

This situation is being justified – even by atheist Israelis – by the argument that Israel relies on the support of world Jewry. And what unites world Jewry? Religion. (By the way, Leibowitz once told me that the Jewish religion had been dead for 200 years, and that what united world Jewry was the memory of the Holocaust.)

Under state doctrine, Israel is the Nation-state of the Jewish people. Under Zionist doctrine, the Jewish people and the Jewish religion are one and the same. Ergo, there is and can be no separation.

Anyone wanting to turn Israel into a normal country must reject both these doctrines. Israelis are a nation, and the State of Israel belongs to this nation. Every citizen, male or female, should be able to pray to whoever he or she wants, in any public place, including the Western Wall.

The Temple Mount (known to Muslims as Haram al-Sharif, the venerable shrine), including the Western Wall and, at a short distance, the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, are of immense importance to billions of people and should be a factor for peace.

We can only hope that sometime in the future they will fulfill this mission.

“THE TWO-STATE solution is dead!” This mantra has been repeated so often lately, by so many authoritative commentators, that it must be true.

Well, it ain‘t.

It reminds one of Mark Twain’s oft quoted words: “The report of my death was an exaggeration.”

BY NOW this has become an intellectual fad. To advocate the two-state solution means that you are ancient, old-fashioned, stale, stodgy, a fossil from a bygone era. Hoisting the flag of the “one-state solution” means that you are young, forward-looking, “cool”.

Actually, this only shows how ideas move in circles. When we declared in early 1949, just after the end of the first Israeli-Arab war, that the only answer to the new situation was the establishment of a Palestinian state side by side with Israel, the “one-state solution” was already old.

The idea of a “bi-national state” was in vogue in the 1930s. Its main advocates were well-meaning intellectuals, many of them luminaries of the new Hebrew University, like Judah Leon Magnes and Martin Buber. They were reinforced by the Hashomer Hatza’ir kibbutz movement, which later became the Mapam party.

It never gained any traction. The Arabs believed that it was a Jewish trick. Bi-nationalism was built on the principle of parity between the two populations in Palestine – 50% Jews, 50% Arabs. Since the Jews at that time were much less than half the population, Arab suspicions were reasonable.

On the Jewish side, the idea looked ridiculous. The very essence of Zionism was to have a state where Jews would be masters of their fate, preferably in all of Palestine.

At the time, no one called it the “one-state solution” because there was already one state – the State of Palestine, ruled by the British. The “solution” was called “the bi-national state” and died, unmourned, in the war of 1948.

WHAT HAS caused the miraculous resurrection of this idea?

Not the birth of a new love between the two peoples. Such a phenomenon would have been wonderful, even miraculous. If Israelis and Palestinians had discovered their common values, the common roots of their history and languages, their common love for this country – why, wouldn’t that have been absolutely splendid?

But, alas, the renewed “one-state solution” was not born of another immaculate conception. Its father is the occupation, its mother despair.

The occupation has already created a de facto One State – an evil state of oppression and brutality, in which half the population (or slightly less than half) deprives the other half of almost all rights – human rights, economic rights and political rights. The Jewish settlements proliferate, and every day brings new stories of woe.

Good people on both sides have lost hope. But hopelessness does not stir to action. It fosters resignation.

LET’S GO back to the starting point. “The two-state solution is dead”. How come? Who says? In accordance with what scientific criteria has death been certified?

Generally, the spread of the settlements is cited as the sign of death. In the 1980s the respected Israeli historian Meron Benvenisti pronounced that the situation had now become “irreversible”. At the time, there were hardly 100 thousand settlers in the occupied territories (apart from East Jerusalem, which by common consent is a separate issue). Now they claim to be 300 thousand, but who is counting? How many settlers mean irreversibility? 100, 300, 500, 800 thousand?

History is a hothouse of reversibility. Empires grow and collapse. Cultures flourish and wither. So do social and economic patterns. Only death is irreversible.

I can think of a dozen different ways to solve the settlement problem, from forcible removal to exchange of territories to Palestinian citizenship. Who believed that the settlements in North Sinai would be removed so easily? That the evacuation of the Gaza Strip settlements would become a national farce?

In the end, there will probably be a mixture of several ways, according to circumstances.

All the Herculean problems of the conflict can be resolved - if there is a will. It’s the will that is the real problem.

THE ONE-STATERS like to base themselves on the South African experience. For them, Israel is an apartheid state, like the former South Africa, and therefore the solution must be South African-like.

The situation in the occupied territories, and to some extent in Israel proper, does indeed strongly resemble the apartheid regime. The apartheid example may be justly cited in political debate. But in reality, there is very little deeper resemblance – if any - between the two countries.

David Ben-Gurion once gave the South African leaders a piece of advice: partition. Concentrate the white population in the south, in the Cape region, and cede the other parts of the country to the blacks. Both sides in South Africa rejected this idea furiously, because both sides believed in a single, united country.

They largely spoke the same languages, adhered to the same religion, were integrated in the same economy. The fight was about the master-slave relationship, with a small minority lording it over a massive majority.

Nothing of this is true in our country. Here we have two different nations, two populations of nearly equal size, two languages, two (or rather, three) religions, two cultures, two totally different economies.

A false proposition leads to false conclusions. One of them is that Israel, like Apartheid South Africa, can be brought to its knees by an international boycott. About South Africa, this is a patronizing imperialist illusion. The boycott, moral and important as it was, did not do the job. It was the Africans themselves, aided by some local white idealists, who did it by their courageous strikes and uprisings.

I am an optimist, and I do hope that eventually Jewish Israelis and Palestinian Arabs will become sister nations, living side by side in harmony. But to come to that point, there must be a period of living peacefully in two adjoining states, hopefully with open borders.

THE PEOPLE who speak now of the “one-state solution” are idealists. But they do a lot of harm. And not only because they remove themselves and others from the struggle for the only solution that is realistic.

If we are going to live together in one state, it makes no sense to fight against the settlements. If Haifa and Ramallah will be in the same state, what is the difference between a settlement near Haifa and one near Ramallah? But the fight against the settlements is absolutely essential, it is the main battlefield in the struggle for peace.

Indeed, the one-state solution is the common aim of the extreme Zionist right and the extreme anti-Zionist left. And since the right is incomparably stronger, it is the left that is aiding the right, and not the other way round.

In theory, that is as it should be. Because the one-staters believe that the rightists are only preparing the ground for their future paradise. The right is uniting the country and putting an end to the possibility of creating an independent State of Palestine. They will subject the Palestinians to all the horrors of apartheid and much more, since the South African racists did not aim at displacing and replacing the blacks. But in due course – perhaps in a mere few decades, or half a century – the world will compel Greater Israel to grant the Palestinians full rights, and Israel will become Palestine.

According to this ultra-leftist theory, the right, which is now creating the racist one state, is in reality the Donkey of the Messiah, the legendary animal on which the Messiah will ride to triumph.

It’s a beautiful theory, but what is the assurance that this will actually happen? And before the final stage arrives, what will happen to the Palestinian people? Who will compel the rulers of Greater Israel to accept the diktat of world public opinion?

If Israel now refuses to bow to world opinion and enable the Palestinians to have their own state in 28% of historical Palestine, why would they bow to world opinion in the future and dismantle Israel altogether?

Speaking about a process that will surely last 50 years and more, who knows what will happen? What changes will take place in the world in the meantime? What wars and other catastrophes will take the world’s mind off the “Palestinian issue”?

Would one really gamble the fate of one’s nation on a far-fetched theory like this?

ASSUMING FOR a moment that the one-state solution would really come about, how would it function?

Will Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs serve in the same army, pay the same taxes, obey the same laws, work together in the same political parties? Will there be social intercourse between them? Or will the state sink into an interminable civil war?

Other peoples have found it impossible to live together in one state. Take the Soviet Union. Yugoslavia. Serbia. Czechoslovakia. Cyprus. Sudan. The Scots want to secede from the United Kingdom. So do the Basques and the Catalans from Spain. The French in Canada and the Flemish in Belgium are uneasy. As far as I know, nowhere in the entire world have two different peoples agreed to form a joint state for decades.

NO, THE two-state solution is not dead. It cannot die, because it is the only solution there is.

Despair may be convenient and tempting. But despair is no solution at all.

AN AMBASSADOR is an honest man sent abroad to lie for the good of his country, a British statesman famously wrote some 400 years ago. That is true, of course, for all diplomats.

The question is whether the diplomat lies only to others, or also to himself.

I am asking this these days when I follow the arduous efforts of John Kerry, the new American foreign secretary, to jump-start the Israeli-Arab “peace process”.

Kerry seems to be an honest man. A serious man. A patient man. But does he really believe that his endeavors will lead anywhere?

TRUE, THIS week Kerry did achieve a remarkable success.

A delegation of Arab foreign ministers, including the Palestinian, met with him in Washington. They were led by the Qatari prime minister – a relative of the Emir, of course – whose country is assuming a more and more prominent role in the Arab world.

At the meeting, the ministers emphasized that the Arab Peace Initiative is still valid.

This initiative, forged 10 years ago by the then Saudi Crown Prince (and present King) Abdullah, was endorsed by the entire Arab League in the March 2002 Summit Conference in Beirut. Yasser Arafat could not attend, because Prime Minister Ariel Sharon announced that if he left the country, he would not be allowed to return. But Arafat officially accepted the initiative.

It will be remembered that soon after the 1967 war, the Arab Summit Conference in Khartoum promulgated the Three Noes: No peace with Israel, No recognition of Israel, No negotiations with Israel. The new initiative was a total reversal of that resolution, which was born out of humiliation and despair.

The Saudi initiative was reaffirmed unanimously in the 2007 Summit Conference in Riyadh. All Arab rulers attended, including Mahmoud Abbas of Palestine who voted in favor, excluding only Muammar Gaddafi of Libya.

The initiative says unequivocally that all Arab countries would announce the end of the Arab-Israeli conflict, sign peace treaties with Israel, and institute normal relations with Israel. In return, Israel would withdraw to the June 4, 1967 border (the Green Line). The State of Palestine, with its capital in East Jerusalem, would be established. The refugee problem would be solved by agreement (meaning agreement with Israel).

As I wrote at the time, if anyone had told us in May 1967 that the Arab world would make such an offer, they would have been locked up in an institution for the mentally ill. But those of us who advocated the acceptance of the Arab initiative were branded as traitors.

In his conference with the Arab ministers this week, John Kerry succeeded in pushing them a step further. They agreed to add that the 1967 Green Line may be changed by swaps of territories. This means that the large settlements along the border, where the great majority of the settlers reside, would be annexed to Israel, in return for largely inferior Israeli land.

WHEN THE initiative was first aired, the Israeli government was desperately looking for a way out.

The first excuse that sprang to mind – then as always – was the refugee problem. It is easy to create panic in Israel with the nightmare of millions of refugees “flooding” Israel, putting an end to the Jewishness of the Jewish State.

Sharon, the Prime Minister at the time, willfully ignored the crucial clause inserted by the Saudis into their plan: that there would be an “agreed” solution. This clearly means that Israel was accorded the right to veto any solution. In practice, this would amount to the return of a symbolic number, if any at all.

Why did the initiative mention the refugees at all? Well, no Arab could possibly publish a peace plan that did not mention them. Even so, the Lebanese objected to the clause, because it would leave the refugees in Lebanon.

But the refugees are always a useful bogeyman. Then and now.

ONE DAY before the original Saudi initiative was submitted to the Beirut Summit, on March 27, 2002, something terrible happened: Hamas terrorists carried out a massacre in Netanya, with 40 dead and hundreds wounded. It was on the eve of Passover, the joyous Jewish holiday.

The Israeli public was inflamed. Sharon immediately responded that In these circumstances, the Arab peace initiative would not even be considered. Never mind that the atrocity was committed by Hamas with the express purpose of sabotaging the Saudi initiative and undermining Arafat, who supported it. Sharon mendaciously blamed Arafat for the bloody deed, and that was that.

Curiously – or maybe not – a similar thing happened this week. On the very day the upgraded Arab initiative was published, a young Palestinian killed a settler with a knife at a checkpoint – the first Jew killed in the West Bank for more than a year and a half.

The victim, Evyatar Borowsky, was the 31-year old father of five children – usual for an orthodox man. He was a resident of the Yitzhar settlement near Nablus, perhaps the most extreme anti-Arab settlement in the entire West Bank. He looked like the quintessential ideological settler – blond, bearded, with East-European looks, long payot (side locks), and a large colored kippah. The perpetrator came from the Palestinian town of Tulkarm. He was shot and severely injured. He is now in an Israeli hospital.

Before the incident, Netanyahu had been hard at work to formulate a statement that would reject the peace initiative without insulting the Americans. After the killing, he decided that there was no need. The terrorist has done his job. (As an old Jewish saying goes: “The work of the righteous one is done by others”.)

Justice Minister Tzipi Livni, who is in charge of the (nonexistent) negotiations with the Palestinians, and President Shimon Peres welcomed the Arab statement. But Livni’s influence in the government is next to nil, and Peres is by now a joke in Israel.

IF THE American Secretary of State really believes that he can nudge our government slowly and gradually to “meaningful” negotiation with the Palestinians, he is deluding himself. If he does not believe it, he is trying to delude others.

There have been no real negotiations with the Palestinians since Ehud Barak came back from the Camp David conference in 2000, waving the slogan “We Have No Partner for Peace”. With this he destroyed the Israeli peace movement and brought Ariel Sharon to power.

Before that, there were no real negotiations either. Yitzhak Shamir announced that he was happy to negotiate for ever. (Shamir, by the way, declared that it was a virtue to “lie for the fatherland”.) Documents were produced and gathered dust, conferences were photographed and forgotten, agreements were signed and made no real difference. Nothing moved. Nothing - apart from settlement activity, that is.

Why? How would anyone entertain the belief that from now on everything would be different?

Kerry will elicit some more words from the Arabs. Some more promises from Netanyahu. There may even be a festive opening of a new round of negotiations, a great victory for President Obama and Kerry.

But nothing will change. Negotiations will just drag on. And on. And on.

For the same reason that there has been no movement in the past, there will be no movement in the future – unless…

UNLESS. UNLESS Obama takes the bull by the horns, which, it seems, he is exceedingly unwilling to do.

The horns of the bull are the horns of the dilemma, on which Israel is sitting.

It is the historic choice facing us: Greater Israel or Peace?

Peace, any conceivable peace, the very basis of the Arab Initiative, means Israel’s withdrawal from the occupied Palestinian territories and the establishment of the State of Palestine in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, with its capital in East Jerusalem. No ifs, no buts, no perhapses.

The opposite of peace is Israeli rule over the whole of the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, in one form or another. (Lately, some despairing Israeli peaceniks have been embracing this, in the absurd hope that in this Greater Israel, Israel would grant equality to the Arabs.)

If President Obama has the will and the power to compel the government of Israel to make this historic decision and choose peace, may the political price for the president be as it may, then he should proceed.

If this will and this power do not exist, the whole great peace effort is an exercise in deception, and honorable men should not indulge in it.

They should honestly face the two sides and the world and tell them:

No, We Can’t.

WHEN THE huge immigration wave from the Soviet Union arrived in 1990, we were glad.

First of all, because we believe that all immigration is a good thing for the country. This, I believe, is generally the case.

Second, because we were convinced that this specific group of immigrants would push our country in the right direction.

These people, we told ourselves, have been educated for 70 years in an internationalist spirit. They have just overthrown a cruel dictatorial system, so they must be avid democrats. Many of them are not Jews, but only relatives (sometimes remote) of Jews. So here we have hundreds of thousands of secular, internationalist and non-nationalist new citizens, just what we need. They would add a positive element to the demographic cocktail that is Israel.

Moreover, since the pre-state Jewish community in the country (the so-called “yishuv”) was largely shaped by immigrants from Czarist and early revolutionary Russia, the new immigrants would surely mingle easily with the general population.

Or so we thought.

THE PRESENT situation is the very opposite.

The immigrants from the former Soviet Union – all bundled together as “the Russians” in common parlance – have not mingled at all. They are a separate community, living in a self-made ghetto.

They continue to speak Russian. They read their own Russian newspapers, all of them rabidly nationalist and racist. They vote for their own party, led by the Moldavian-born Evet (now Avigdor) Lieberman. They have practically no contact with other Israelis.

In their first two years in the country, they mainly voted for Yitzhak Rabin of the Labor party, but not because he promised peace, but because he was a general and was presented to them as an outstanding military man. From then on they have consistently voted for the extreme Right.

The very large majority of them hate Arabs, reject peace, support the settlers and vote for right-wing governments.

Since they now constitute almost 20% of the Israeli population, this is a major component of Israel’s move to the right.

WHY FOR heaven’s sake?

There are several theories, probably all of them right.

One I heard from a high-ranking Russian official: “During the Soviet era, the Jews were just Soviet citizens like everybody else. When the Union broke up, everybody retreated into his own nation. The Jews were left in a void. So they went to Israel and became more Israeli than all the other Israelis. Even the non-Jews among them became Israeli super-patriots.”

Another theory goes like this: “When communism collapsed in Russia, there was nothing but nationalism (or religion) to take its place. The population was imbued with totalitarian attitudes, a disdain for democracy and liberalism, a longing for strong leaders. There was also the widespread racism of the ‘white’ population of the Northern Soviet Union towards the ‘dark’ peoples of the South. When the Russian Jews (and non-Jews) came to Israel, they brought these attitudes with them. They just substituted the Arabs for the despised Armenians, Chechens and all the others. These attitudes are nourished daily by the Russian newspapers and TV stations in Israel.”

I noticed these attitudes when I visited the Soviet Union for the first time in 1990, during the era of Mikhail Gorbachev’s Glasnost. I could not visit it before, because my name was regularly struck from every one of the lists of people invited to see the glories of the Soviet fatherland. I don’t know why. (Curiously enough, I was also struck from the lists of dignitaries invited to the US embassy parties on the 4th of July, and some years I had great difficulties in obtaining an American visa. Perhaps because I demonstrated against the Vietnam War. I must be one of the few people in the world who can pride themselves on having been simultaneously on the black list of both the CIA and the KGB.)

I went to Russia to write a book about the end of the communist regimes in Eastern Europe (it was published in Hebrew under the title “Lenin Does Not Live Here Anymore”.) Rachel and I liked Moscow very much, but it took only a few days for us to be amazed at the rampant racism we saw everywhere around us. Dark-skinned citizens were treated with undisguised contempt. When we went to the market and joked with the vendors, all people from the South with whom we established immediate rapport, our young, nice, serious-faced Russian translator distanced himself quite openly.

MY FRIENDS and I have been meeting every Friday for some 50 years. When the Russians started to arrive, our “table” was in Tel Aviv’s Café Kassit, the mythological meeting place of writers, artists and such.

One day we noticed that a group of young Russian immigrants had established a “table” of their own. Full of sympathy – as well as curiosity – we joined them from time to time.

At the beginning it worked. Some friendships were struck up. But then something curious happened. They distanced themselves from us, making it clear that for them we were only some uncultured Middle Eastern barbarians, unworthy of association with people brought up on Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky. Soon enough they disappeared from our view.

I was reminded of this last Friday when an unusually heated discussion broke out at our table. We had a guest, a young “Russian” female scientist, who accused the Left of indifference and a patronizing attitude towards the Russian community which had caused it to turn to the right. A leading female peace activist reacted furiously, arguing that the Russians had already come to the country with a near-fascist attitude.

I agreed with both of them.

ISRAEL’S ATTITUDE towards new immigrants has always been a bit on the strange side.

Leaders like David Ben-Gurion treated Zionist immigration as if it was merely a transportation problem. They went to extraordinary lengths to bring Jews from all over the world to Israel, but once they were here, they were left to fend for themselves. Sure, material assistance was given, housing was provided, but next to nothing was done to integrate them into society.

This was true of the mass immigration of German Jews in the 1930s, the Oriental Jews in the 1950s, and the Russians in the 1990s. When the Russian Jews showed a marked preference for the USA, our government pressured the American administration to shut the gates in their face, so they were practically forced to come here. When they did come, they were left to congregate in ghettos, instead of being induced to spread and settle among us.

The Israeli Left was no exception. When some feeble efforts to draw them to the peace camp were unsuccessful, they were left well alone. The organization to which I belong, Gush Shalom, once distributed 100,000 copies of our flagship publication (“Truth against Truth”, the history of the conflict) in Russian, but when we received only one sole answer, we were discouraged. Obviously, the Russians did not give a damn for the history of this country, about which they do not have the slightest idea.

TO UNDERSTAND the importance of this problem one must visualize the composition of Israeli society as it is (I have written about this in the past). It consists of five main sectors, of almost equal size, as follows:

a. Jews of European origin, called Ashkenazim, to which most of the cultural, economic, political and military elite belongs. The Left is almost completely concentrated here.

b. Jews of Oriental origin, often called (mistakenly) Sephardim, from Arab and other Muslim countries. They are the base of Likud.

c. Religious Jews, which include the ultra-Orthodox Haredim, both Ashkenazi and Oriental, as well as the National-Religious Zionists, which include the leadership of the settlers.

d. Arab-Palestinian citizens, mostly located in three large geographical blocs.

e. The “Russians”

Some of these sectors overlap to some minor extent, but the picture is clear. The Arabs and many of the Ashkenazim belong to the peace camp, all the others are solidly right-wing.

Because of this, it is absolutely imperative to win over at least sections of the Oriental Jews, the religious and – yes – the “Russians”, to create a majority for peace. To my mind, that is the most important task of the peace camp at this moment.

AT THE end of the furious debate at our table, I tried to calm down the two sides:

“No need to fight about sharing the blame. There is quite enough for everybody.”