Former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon, when asked to explain the apparent about-face that led him to advocate the unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, quoted a beloved Israeli pop ballad. “What you can see from there, you can’t see from here,” he said, referring to the shift in perspective he had supposedly undergone since coming to power.
Israeli-born Holocaust historian Omer Bartov invoked the same line when he was asked how he had come to view Israel’s ferocious assault on Gaza as a genocide. Living in the US, where he has spent more than three decades, he said, had given him the necessary distance to see the annihilation of Gaza for what it was. “I think it’s very hard to be dispassionate when you’re there,” he said.
Bartov did more than simply apply the word genocide to Israel’s actions: he shouted it from the establishment-media rooftops, making the case in a lengthy July 2025 essay in the New York Times titled: I’m a Genocide Scholar. I Know It When I See It. (He had addressed some of the arguments in a Guardian essay the year prior.) Bartov’s declaration cost him several close relationships, he told me, even though subsequent events have not only validated his analysis but further demonstrated the lack of concern for Palestinian suffering that has become prevalent in Israeli society.
His new book, Israel: What Went Wrong?, is an attempt to explain that indifference. The book, which was published on Tuesday, is a detailed account of how Israel was transformed from a hopeful nation that in its founding document promised “complete equality of social and political rights to all its citizens irrespective of religion, race or sex” into one intent on what he bluntly terms “settler colonialism and ethno-nationalism”.
Egypt cannot possibly govern the West Bank, it is too far from the Egyptian heartland and it is also physically separated from the rest of country. Egypt has already tried governing Gaza before and that went horribly wrong.
Jordan and the West Bank are physically connected and they’re the same culturally, therefore it makes sense for them to be together in that sense, but with that being said, Jordan also tried to rule the West Bank before and that went pretty poorly.
The biggest hurdle here is why would Egypt or Jordan participate? What would they get out of it. They would be getting a big headache in exchange for a lot of strategic land (Egypt giving the Sinai also means giving up one side of the Suez Canal and that’s a big no no in geopolitics). Not to mention, that the West Bank already has well over 700,000 settlers. Even if we exclude East Jerusalem, that’s still over 500k settlers. That’s a loooot of people, and they’re also some of most unhinged zealots you’ll find anywhere in the world. That’s even bigger headache than the Palestinians that they’ll have to take on. I just don’t see this as a realistic proposal.
Egypt would be giving up some up the Sinai not all of it. The US governs Alaska and Hawaii despite not being physically connected. Egypt will get peace at its borders. Also, fighting in Gaza and the West Bank could push Palestinian refugees into Egypt.
It’s not the same. The US has unrestricted air and ocean access to both Alaska and Hawaii, Egypt won’t have that. Not to mention, Egypt gains nothing from this deal. The Sinai is more strategically important to them
As part of the deal, Egypt could be given permission to access its new land through a specific land corridor. Egypt would gain peace on its borders. Continual fighting between Israel and Palestinian could cause a flood of migrants into Egypt.
Egypt already has peace with Israel and they’re already blocking any potential wave of Palestinian migrants and have been for decades now. Egypt doesn’t benefit from such a deal
They will have to go somewhere. Under my proposal they will stay in the West Bank, but it will be controlled by Egypt. There will be no humanitarian crisis.
You’re missing the point. Your proposal makes zero sense for any of the parties involved. Your reasoning is not sound, your claimed benefits aren’t real, and the compromise is incoherent.
It makes zero sense for Egypt to give the Sinai. That’s very strategic land that keeps the Suez Canal firmly in Egyptian control while also acting as a buffer between Israel/Palestine and the Egyptian heartland.
It makes zero sense for Israel to over the Sinai as it’s just a massive patch of desert. They already controlled it once before and they gave it up in exchange for recognition. That’s how worthless it was to Israel. The West Bank, unlike the Sinai is actually habitable, fertile land that solves one Israel’s biggest geopolitical problems, which is that the current core of the Israeli heartland is too thin and exposed.
It makes zero sense for the Palestinians in the West Bank to be ruled by Egypt which is not similar to them culturally nor is it connected to them physically. They’ll just end up being a neglected after thought by the government in Cairo.
Your proposal does not answer the question of what will happen to the 700k+ settlers in the West Bank, or how any of the parties would feel about them leaving/staying. It doesn’t answer how the relocation of the 2 million Gazans is going to go. It doesn’t answer how the West Bank is going to absorb the 2 million Gazans, when the West Bank only has a population of 2.5 million itself, meaning that the population would literally double.
Like it’s just a flawed proposal all around. I’m not sure why you’re doubling down on it when you could easily come up with a better proposal.