10 June 2025
Professor Menachem Klein speaks on the radicalisation of Israeli society and its support for war crimes in Gaza. Klein, a veteran in unofficial Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and a signatory of the Geneva Agreement, discusses the historical and social transformations leading to the current conflict. He identifies three key structural changes in Israeli society: the establishment of an apartheid-like regime, elite transformation, and internal civil unrest. Klein suggests that both Israeli and Palestinian leaders have historically misjudged each other’s strengths and motivations, contributing to ongoing conflict. He emphasizes the need for a two-state solution based on equality and partnership, with open borders and shared sovereignty. The webinar also discusses the broader implications of U.S. support for Israeli policies and the potential undermining of international law. Audience questions cover a range of topics, including the right of return for Palestinians, the role of U.S. foreign policy, and strategies for influencing Israeli public opinion. Klein calls for increased civil society pressure on politicians and the development of new, collaborative solutions to the conflict.
Prof. Menachem Klein is active in many unofficial negotiations with Palestinian counterparts. In October 2003 Prof. Klein signed together with prominent Israeli and Palestinian negotiators the Geneva Agreement – a detailed proposal for a comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian peace accord. He is Senior Fellow in Bruno Kreisky Forum for International Dialogue and board member of Palestine – Israel Journal. Previously he was board member of B’tselem, The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories.
View Video
Listen to Audio/Podcast
Transcript
Diana Safieh:
Hello everyone.
I’m Diana Safieh. I work with the Britain Palestine project on their events programs such as these webinars that we convert into podcasts, so they’re all recorded. You can find them on our website. You can find them on Spotify, apple Podcasts, wherever you listen to your podcast.
You can also find them on YouTube if you want to watch the videos. The Britain Palestine project has the aim of peace and justice with justice, security and equal rights for Israelis and Palestinians. The mission being acknowledging Britain’s continuing historic responsibilities to uphold equal rights for the Israeli and Palestinian peoples through popular education and advocacy.
And to convince the British government to recognize the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel. We had a very interesting conference recently on the rule of law. I’m pleased to say that all of those, sessions are all on our website, as well as being on the on all of those platforms I mentioned where you listen to your podcasts on YouTube as well.
Let me introduce our speaker. This is Professor Menachem Klein. He is an active, he’s active in many unofficial negotiations with Palestinian counterparts. He’s taken part in several of our past conferences as well. In October 20 2003, professor Klein signed together with the prominent Israeli and Palestinian negotiators, the Geneva Agreement, a detailed proposal for a comprehensive Israeli and Palestinian Peace Accord.
Previously, he was a board member of BTSelem, an organization that we work with very regularly and. And have had many speakers join us for webinars as well, the Israeli Information Centre for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories.
He’s the author of several publications, including Lives in Common, which is the New Republic’s 2014 best global nonfiction book. Today he has very kindly agreed to join us to talk about the sort of attitudes in the Israeli society, how Israeli society became radicalized.
He is going to discuss with us why normal Israelis have come to support the Gaza War crimes. So I’m going to hand over to you and let you speak and give us a little opening, and then I’ve got a few questions that I’m going to come and relay to you.
Professor Menachem Klein:
Thank you, Dee. I’m very happy to be here with you and to be physically in London actually.
I will start with a short introduction and then let’s move to Q&A. Regarding the Israeli perspective on the war. First I would like, I would like to state that in my view, this war is a formative event, no less formative than the 1948 and the 1967 wars in the history of the Middle East, history of Israel Palestine relations. It changes everything, really, everything.
Just if we look around, we see that the regime change in Syria, for instance, the old region is changing during this war. What I would like to discuss is not the geo-politics, but also what happened but rather what happened to the Israeli society. I assume that most of you do not follow Hebrew social media, but anyone who reads Hebrew social media, especially from the outside, can be shocked on what’s going on there.
In the Israeli domestic discourse the how far the Israeli society radicalized soldiers proudly upload photos of war crimes they enthusiastically committed. Army commanders and citizens use genocidal terminology occasionally blended with biblical quotations, and I have reference of all of this so I can share it with anyone who is interested.
Both soldiers and civilians take pride in the dehumanization of the Palestinians unrelated to what they do, because what they are, not what they do. Senior politicians, university professors, lawyers, rabbis, and journalists, published statements in a favour of genocide and mass expulsion. The perception that this is an existential struggle akin to us or them moved from the racist fringe of the militant right to the centre and reached a stronghold even in the centre left circles.
So something very bad happened to the Israeli society. So what happened? I would like to present my reading of what happened to most of the Israeli Jews, what clouded their minds and hardened their hearts to what the IDF was doing in their name to the Palestinians and previously also to the Lebanese.
By no means, and I would like to emphasize this, by no means the following statements, the following suggestions, are not an attempt to justify war crimes and atrocities or genocide, but explore what made them possible. Obviously the radicalization is a collective traumatic reaction to Israel’s severe modal and material loses, and the war crimes committed by Hamas forces, Gaza Strip residents, and Hezbollah forces the unprecedented occupation and evacuation of Israeli settlements and towns empowered.
The popular belief that their existence was undermined, fearing a sudden attack from Hamas, many central Israeli citizens, even leftists carrying weapons. Moreover, taking into account that Israeli existence existential fear is genuine. I would like to discuss what type of existence Israeli Jews have, and what kind of a state they are afraid of losing.
That’s the key question that that I would like to deal with. It’s not just an existential threat, but existential threat to a certain type of a state. I identify three interrelated structural transformations that Israeli society moved through prior to the October 7th horrific attack.
And these are the following three structural transformations. One, the establishment of a single apartheid style regime with powerful ethno religious factors. Second elite transformation. Third, cold civil war inside the Israeli society. The Hamas attack found Israel transforming and deeply divided between two confronting identity groups and social classes.
So the Israelis felt that their state is in danger.
I would like for a moment to move to Hamas. I assume that many Palestinians, Hamas members and supporters included share the abstract vision of freeing Palestine from Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. However, I don’t know on any Hamas document explaining that in 2023, it concluded that Israel has weakened to the extent that Hamas is qualified to exterminate the Zionist state.
Indeed Hamas documents show the contrary. Hamas feel that the near to conclude talks on normalization agreement between Saudi Arabia and Israel would soon provide Israel with the needed political power and legitimacy to crash the Palestinian independence aspirations. Thus both Hamas and Israel, extra aggressive operations were driven by deep despair and imagined existential threats and both of them did not preplanned for the day after the war.
Moreover, Hamas prioritized its military attack as Plan B when Israel and United States with Mahmoud Abbas, responsiveness, succeeded in early 2021 to block its integration in a reformed and newly elected PLO and PL PA institutions. Hamas fat agreement in Beijing in July, 2024 was an update of their previous 2021 agreement.
The attack came when Israeli society was in a crisis in the transformation, and therefore is Israeli society feared that it’s very imagined that its very existence is on stake. Actually, this imagination is still in force nowadays, and this brings many Israelis to the conclusion that this is a war of us against them.
It’s an existential war of us against them, and our existence is in danger. This is the framework. This leads Israelis. To implement war crimes, to use a genocidal language and actually commit war crimes, not only in Gaza Strip, in lower scale, also in the West Bank. Before that, it was also made in South Lebanon.
So this is the context, and this is the context of the of the very tough language that Israelis use in their social media discourse. Israel hopes to re their go. The government, the society, the coalition hopes to restore the Jewish supremacy. And what the transformation that Israel went through is from the militaristic Zionism that ruled the country.
From 48 up to the 21st century, this elite was moved away. Was pushed a aside by the New Elite. The new elite, the Netanyahu Coalition that I titled as Jewish Supremacy. The Jewish Supremacy Coalition did not come out of the blue. It came out from the militaristic Zionism.
The military Zionism has a strong, powerful, ethno national element inside it, but it was much restrained and take into consideration other factors. The Jewish Supremacy Coalition is very different in principle. And the Jewish supremacy Social Forces now rules the army.
They expanded into the security services, the government agencies, and they ruled the country and they manage a legal transformation, and new legal system inside Israel. In order to further base their the rule, they also rule the media. Actually Netanyahu does not need emergency rules in order to hold power.
He rules the media, and the media brainwashed the Israelis, the media directed by the Jewish Supremacy Coalition and by Netanyahu actually brainwash the Israeli mind and move them away from seeing what the IDF is doing on their behalf to the ga, the poor Gaza people.
I made my point. Let’s move to Q&A.
Diana:
I found it so interesting to get a bit of an insight into the Israeli society, which I am outside of. So that is really fascinating to hear. And just to highlight that point that I think is crucial, that Hamas, the attack that Hamas committed on the 7th of October happened at such a point of transformation and it was the perfect storm for what happened thereafter. And very much we see it time and time again in history, right? Creating that ‘other’ enemy is the best way of uniting an uncohesive society. And as you said, there was this dilemma of these two faces of Israel and these two dichotomies. So I wanted to ask you first, because I think you are so incredibly brave to be speaking out the way you do.
How is it to be in Israel as an outspoken opponent of, not just the Gaza policy, but the other policies to use words like an apartheid tendencies and so forth. Do you feel threatened? Do you get threatened?
Menachem:
I’m not getting threatened. I don’t face threat threats and so on. But I find myself in the margins.
I find myself debating with many social media friends but still people like me. We form up a small group that we meet and we discuss and we prepare an alternative. We prepare an alternative that we titled as peace based on equality and partnership. And we would like to offer it for the day after the war, for the for the day when the Israelis will start looking for an alternative for to the bloodshed and the war atrocities and the gen genocide partnership based peace suggests to have to based, to have two state solution, but very different two state solutions than the one that was discussed in Oslo. A very different one based on equality and partnership and open borders rather than we are here. They are there. And let’s build a wall between us. No, just the contrary. And we must share the land. We must share our roots in, we must acknowledge that both people have historical and religious attachment to the land.
Palestine is not exclusively Jewish. And this guides our future vision. So we would like to suggest a very different two state concept with let’s say arrangements that may develop to a confederation in a later stage. But we acknowledge that the Palestinians wish to have their own state.
They have the right to do they want to feel free from Israeli occupation and the Jewish people. The Jewish component of Palestine was also to have the its own state with equal rights to its Palestinian citizens.
Diana:
So just to emphasize, this has come up in the questions. You’re not talking about a one state solution. You’re talking about a two state solution slash confederation, which is an idea that has been also discussed quite prolifically.
Menachem:
Yeah. I analyze the one state solution and I find it more problematic than the two state solution.
The two state solution is not free from problems. Definitely it is problematic, but the question is which option is less problematic?
Diana:
Which is the most mutually unacceptable solution?
Menachem:
Yeah but which type? The question, the key question is which type of the two state solution is most rejected?
My answer is that was offered in Oslo process. The one that Barack and the Labour movement and the militaristic Zionism offered in 2000 or in 2008. And so on.
It’s actually an Israeli overriding state and security supervision and over the state of Palestine and limiting its sovereignty. This is not what I mean. Definitely not. What I mean is a fully sovereign Palestinian state next to fully sovereign Israel. And with open borders.
Diana:
We’ve had a few people ask about the settlements. How does the settlement fit into such a plan? Does this new version or new vision of a two states solution/confederation accommodate the settler communities within the West Bank?
How does it aim to deal with that problem?
Menachem:
Of course settlers who remain in Palestine, in Sovereign Palestine, and in my proposal, the state of Palestine can enjoy sovereignty on all 1967 territories. Settlers that wish to remain in Palestine as Palestinian residents, not Palestine, but Israeli citizens residing in Palestine the settlements will have to go through two transformation elements, principle elements first to become fully under Palestinian law, which means that the Palestinian ministries will be responsible for the development for housing for building zoning, everything in the settlement. The settlements that will remain there will be fully under PA. The state of Palestine legislation order.
That’s one. Second, settlements will not be Jewish, exclusive Jewish. What makes the settlements a settlement is this two element that it is managed, ruled, and part of the Israeli legal system. Second, it is exclusive Jewish, and I may add also the third element. It is let’s say an arm sent into the Palestinian Territories in order to bring later Israeli sovereignty.
It is a stronghold in Palestine to bring later or defacto Israeli sovereignty. All these three should not exist in settlements that will remain inside Palestine. So settlements will stop being settlements in this view. I would add another element. Palestinian citizens that wish to reside inside the state of Israel as Palestinian citizens and Israeli residents will have the chance to make it.
This will include not only refugees, but also West Bank natives that they can reside in Israel. So the two states can agree on this formula, which takes out the nerves of the substance of the settlements as such.
Diana:
I’m really pleased that we’ve got Helena Cobin, who I’m sure you know of, and who is an expert on Hamas.
She’s joined us today and she’s asked an interesting question. She says, I’d love to ask Menachem about the contribution he thinks many decades of US governmental coddling of increasingly right wing Israeli governments and failure to uphold fundamentals of international law has made to allowing/encouraging the continuation of that lurch to the right.
Menachem:
Unfortunately, the US support is not just the American right wing support. Also the Democrats massively supported Israel. Unfortunately I would even add that Biden administration helped to undermine the international law system accepted after World War II during this war.
Unfortunately, Netanyahu undermined the international law and the International Order that was established after World War II, also following the Holocaust. This order is undermined and I’m very sad to say that by the state that was founded by many Holocaust victims against what happened to their relatives.
It aimed to protect the world from the return of World War II horrors. And unfortunately, both American parties, Republican and Democratic parties and Israeli regime previously also Russia now, put a big question mark on this world order. We should go back to that order. We should not boycott the ICC.
And the ICJ in Hague are the pillars of the new order and the international community should re-empower this world order.
Diana:
It’s terrifying that this isn’t just an attack on the Palestinian people, but it is an attack on the international law, the rule of law, like you said, everything that was put in place to stop the horrors of another world war and that is falling apart around us should be scary for everyone regardless of how involved or invested they are in Israel and Palestine.
This is something scary for everyone. I’m flitting a bit between subjects. We have so many questions coming in, I can’t even keep up with them. But I wanted to ask about the right of return. We’ve had loads of questions about that. How does that fit in in this sort of confederation idea?
Would myself, for example, have the right to return to Jerusalem?
Menachem:
Welcome, of course. Previously I said how the right of return can be materialized by letting Palestinian refugees to reside in Israel as to the citizens of the state of Palestine, but residing in Israel.
Another part of those who wish to become Israeli citizens should be let to make it and then immigrate to Israel as any other immigrant. Israel, in my view, and I’m not the only person thats suggests that Israel should change its law of return. That was accepted in 48 following the World War II and the Holocaust providing automatic citizenship to every Jew that wants to immigrate.
We can amend it, we can change it to immigrate to a normal immigration law with a special paragraph with special benefit given to any Jew that his very existence abroad is threatened that he can find rescue in the state of Israel so he can enjoy automatically citizenship.
In Israel, if his life is very existence, is in danger. So this is a this can be accepted, but today after almost 80 years of existence, we can have a normal immigration law and then any Palestinian who wants to immigrate to Israel, and by that exercise, his or her right of return should get it.
Compensation and reparation are also part of the how to re right of return can be materialized. And Israel must, in my view, Israel should recognize the right of return that the Palestinians have. Palestine spreads from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean, and both people are attached to the land and have the right to return or to reside on this land.
48 war refugees were expelled by force or by fear. They left fearing war atrocities. It’s very normal. Also, in this war, just remind you more than 300,000 Israelis evacuated their homes from the border next to Gaza and next to Lebanon because they feared the war. They are internal refugees or displaced, and it’s very normal.
So the same happened to many Palestinians in 48, and this following the 48 War, Israel did not let them back. This must change, and we cannot ignore, we should not ignore that. There are in Israel, Israeli Palestinians, Israeli citizens of Palestinian origins that are internal displaced.
There are families that were evacuated and deported from the homes during the 48 war. They should also get compensation. The rights should be acknowledged by the state of Israel. And they should be part of the refugee of 48 refugee settlement.
Diana:
I’m glad you touched on reparations that was asked by a lot of people including Hillary Wise, a friend of the organization.
I want to ask you about the Zionist ideology. Does it inevitably involve the domination of the whole of Palestine or is there an alternative brand of Zionism possible? Is there one that where that would involve genuinely sharing on equal terms the land with Palestinians, or is that impossible?
Menachem:
Once the late Israeli Jewish author Amos Oz said that Zionism is a family name, not a given name, and following discussions about Zionism. Nowadays, I’ve, I’m afraid that in many times those who debate relate to Zionism as a given name, not a family name in a family. There are different streams in Zionism, as I said.
There is the, earlier there is the what the Labour movement, what I called militaristic Zionism which different is different than Jewish supremacy. And both of them are different than, let’s say the ideology of building a spiritual centre in Palestine and they are very different than bridge along the peace alliance that wanted the binational state in Palestine.
So Zionism is a very big family name. Also I must say, recent studies on Jabotinsky, the right wing the father, founder of the Israeli right wing political streams Vladimir Jabotinsky. He wrote about Confederation, he believed in Confederation. We must go back and denounce which kind of Zionism we are against for. Not all the Zionist ideologies, or ideological groups are the same. So, it’ll be mistaken to identify Zionism with Bat Ridge.
Ben Gvir and Smotrich are one example, one stream within Zionism, and I am against it. But if, let’s say Zionism is about Jewish state, not necessarily. The state borders are from the river to the sea, and in principle, we can say even less than 67 borders, Jewish sovereignty can be, let’s say, limited to Tel Aviv, and it’s still Jewish sovereignty.
The sovereignty borders are formed by a sovereign state, but the principle of sovereignty should be divided, from the sovereign borders. And also sovereignty means different things. It can mean confederation. It can mean different things.
So we must expand our discussion, our discourse, our views, not limited to Ben Gvir and Smotrich. They will pass away, will move away in history. And still a liberal Zionism will remain.
Diana:
Thanks for that. We’ve got a bunch of questions on Israeli public opinion.
One from Jim Dingeman. Can Menachem go further into the present situation regarding public opinion? How is the increased international isolation impacting on Israeli public opinion? Do they feel it?
Menachem:
Unfortunately not as much as needed. The Israelis in general, except a few that are attentive to what’s going on in Europe and in the world in general, they live in a bubble. They choose to live in a bubble. They follow the government, they follow the IDF spokesperson. They follow Netanyahu. And they believe that every criticism on Israel is antisemitism. They identify criticism on Israel as antisemitism.
They are in a mental bunker. As I said, it is based on existential threat, which is an imagined xistential threat, and it is built on the first war crimes implemented in October 7. The immediate move within one day from feelings that we rule the Middle East, we are the strongest and nobody can harm us to an attack that Israel never before, since 48, never experienced no Arab army, hurt Israel in such a scale as Hamas attack, no Arab army since 48 and pushed over 300,000 Israelis away from their homes. We must take it into account, implementing war crimes. So it has a huge effect on the Israeli mind and Israelis fear, actually, they fear you. If you go and visit Israeli towns and main cities, you see so many Israelis carrying weapons.
Diana:
And that’s interesting. We had a bunch of questions like from Andrew Cunningham about the militarization of Israeli society. And I want to follow up on what you’re saying about this existential threat from Daniel Benami.
On what basis do you argue that the exist existential threat to Israel is imaginary? There are documented and explicit threats to destroy Israel, not only from Hamas, but also Hezbollah, the Houthis, Iran, and Turkey. And these are also well documented in neutral media. So is there a basis in reality of this fear?
Menachem:
As I said in my opening, the documents that I saw of Hamas say the opposite, they were willing to back Mahmoud Abbas’ two states solution. I have a protocol of their meeting of Hamas leaders with Abbas and the Qataris in 2014, and then Hamas changed its political document in 2017, and then 2021 and agreed with Fatah on a way ahead towards a two-state solution, and later on in in 2024 in Beijing.
So all the documents show just the opposite. That’s on the Palestinian front. In Hezbollah and Iran, they speak about it, but what? We don’t have any plan, any document how they can achieve that if they move from rhetoric to planning. Actually, Iran is 2000 kilometers away from Israel. It can Israel by missiles, but cannot send tanks to conquer Israel and liberate Palestine for the Palestinians. It’s wishful thinking and ideology that is far from capability to be implemented on the ground, boots on the ground. We should be very realistic on this.
Diana:
Going back to your comment about the Israeli society living in a bubble, it almost takes more effort these days, I think, to stay in that bubble with social media and you do have publications in Israel like Haaretz who do comment on what’s happening in Gaza. I guess it’s the algorithm, isn’t it? You follow a few things and that’s all that you see, but there is more and more the opportunity to look outside your bubble these days. But people have to want to, don’t they? And that’s the problem I think.
I’ve got a question from Brian Brivati, our new executive director. He says – You speak of a civil war in Israel, given the electoral system and the power of what you call the new elite. What is the road for an alternative government?
Menachem:
I was just to elaborate in few sentences what I mean by a civil war.
At the moment, it is a cold civil war. And there were few incidents that this cold civil war turned to be hot civil war. It was into 2021 in the what we call mixed Israeli Arab towns. But the cold civil war had has two fronts. One front is between former elite and the new elite.
The fight or the debate regarding the new legal system suggested by the current government that will turn Israel from liberal democracy to an authoritarian regime. And the other front is between Israeli Jewish citizens and Israeli Palestinian citizens. And this front is no less important than the previous one.
We saw that in 2000 and clashes in mixed towns in 2021 or in the new Jewish State basic law that downgrade the citizenship status of the Israeli Palestinians. This front between Jews and Arabs inside Israeli citizenship is an outcome of the defacto annexation of the West Bank and the ruling over Gaza Strip, the defacto one state that its subjects are 50% Jews, 50% Arabs cannot remain liberal democracy.
It must move from liberal democracy with the very, very few credentials of liberal democracy to join supremacy and change the status of the other ethnic group within the sovereignty within the Israeli sovereignty. It must do it. And there is a cold civil war on this. For instance, there is an at attempt now in the Knesset to expel Ayman Odi, the Israeli-Palestinian Knesset member, the leader of one of the Israeli Arab parties.
There are calls to not to let Israeli Arabs run to the next elections.
Diana:
And to put it in perspective, 20% of Israel’s population is Palestinian citizens of Israel. So it’s a significant minority, isn’t it?
Menachem:
But the tragedy is that the Israeli centre left, the militaristic former elite, join the right wing Jewish supremacy in this. 80% against the 20%. And unfortunately, the militaristic Zionism is in a trap. Once the war opened and continue, the war continues. Because they are militaristic, they are with the war and they support the Jewish supremacy.
So you then you see guns and Lapid and Liberman join the, joined Netanyahu backing Netanyahu. That the pilots participate. They do not refuse. The Refuseniks are very small number that refuse to serve in the idea of, because the militaristic Zionism is in a trap, it is first and foremost militaristic Zionism.
And once there is a war, they are called to participate in it. And here the Netanyahu government and the coalition exploit it very well.
Diana:
I think that’s a really important point for us that we in Britain, for example, don’t really get, is that when something like the 7th of October happens, the whole of the society in Israel is mobilized, isn’t it? I was there on the seventh and just seeing all the buses coming in collecting all the soldiers and everyone donating their bottles of water from their house. It’s not something that we see or maybe understand fully that, like you say, it’s a whole society that’s ready for that kind of scenario, prepped in some way.
So this is very depressing. I would like to, I do my regular appeal. We do these we are a charity, the Britain Palestine Project. We do things like these webinars. We make films to share information for people to understand more what’s happening.
We would love if you could support us in any way, but if you have the ability to give a donation, please do consider it.
We are going to wrap up soon, but I said to you, Menachem, I’m always try to end these webinars on a bit of a positive note or at least a bit of a call to action so we don’t leave feeling helpless.
We’ve heard about this very depressing scenario. But what do we do about it? I’m combining a bunch of questions we’ve had from Sam Yusef, Amit Panya, Kenneth Ramsey, a bunch of others. What can we do to help reduce the radicalization, militarization, the bubble of Israeli society?
What can we say to our Israeli friends who are afraid of attacks to help alleviate that fear or open up that understanding between them and their Palestinian neighbours? And finally, specifically here for us in the UK, what can we do? Is there anything that we can do
It’s a lot. Sorry. How do we fix this in a nutshell?
Menachem:
I assume that the politicians have their own political interest. Unfortunately, they’re much less attentive to human being suffering than to their political troubles. So put pressure. Civil society must put pressure on politicians constituencies.
Constituencies should put pressure on their delegates with each one in his own region. Organize groups and put pressure and do it, and please do it because this is the only way to move the politicians and the ministers and the prime ministers to do something.
Otherwise, they take into consideration the power balance between them and Netanyahy, between them and Trump. What’s going on in the EU, and so on and so forth. The power is within the citizens’ hand. Use it, please use it. This is the way, if the Israelis are locked into their bubble, knock on their own doors from the outside and do it powerfully through your politician and civil society pressure.
This is one second. Prepare. Together with Israeli and Palestinian partnership groups, prepare an alternative to the two states, to the old two states solution to the infamous two-state solution that failed to the Oslo process that failed. Prepare an alternative that your government will not prepare an alternative unless it is presented to them by expert, by civil society, by interest group.
Push up every alternative that, that can be made together, Israelis and Palestinians invite Israelis and Palestinians that are ready to cooperate to prepare alternatives.
Diana:
If it feels very like not enough emailing your MP, for example. Let me just tell you a little bit about how we use it here at the Britain Palestine Project. We do regular email your MP campaigns about recognizing the state of Palestine and other timely things. And we can see how many messages each MP has received. So we can map which MPs are under particular amount of pressure by their constituents. I’m pleased to say that most of the MPs we deal with, they’re craving information.
We give them then ammunition in terms of questions they can ask in parliament and so forth. So it is a really important step. And if you’re not signed up to our mailing list, please do consider it because we do these campaigns regularly, as do a bunch of other organizations.
And I just have enough time now to thank you so much for coming and speaking to us on this difficult topic. And I want to thank also everyone who came along and who asked lots of questions.