In January 2025, the Forum for Regional Thinking, in collaboration with the “Israel in the Middle East” research cluster at the Van Leer Jerusalem Institute, published an extensive analytic paper on the road to the Gaza war, including recommendations for a way out of the war towards historic reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians.
Targeting the Jewish-Israeli audience, the paper was endorsed by more than 130 Jewish and Palestinian Israeli academics and intellectuals, many of whom from the disciplines of Islamic and Middle East studies, political science and conflict resolution, making it the most widely endorsed professional analysis of this subject in Israeli academia.
Key Points
● The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is at a crucial crossroads. De-escalation depends on a historical Israeli decision to stop “managing the conflict” and recognize Palestinian national rights.
● Years before the Hamas-led attack on October 7, the State of Israel had three options in its relations with the Palestinians: conflict management; striving for an “ultimate victory”; or a bold and honest attempt at reconciliation and peacemaking.
● The dominant approach presented by policymakers to the Israeli public reflected an unyielding belief in the possibility of long-term “conflict management”. Maintaining this policy involved prioritizing military force over diplomacy, fostering division between the West Bank and Gaza, constant dispossession of Palestinians, daily military violence, reliance on technology as a substitute for political agreements, and overemphasizing the conflict with Iran to marginalize the Palestinian issue.
● Therefore, October 7 reflects not only a military and intelligence failure but also the failure of the conflict management policy. This decades-long policy ended with the unprecedented and brutal military attack by Hamas on southern Israel, which proved Israel’s vulnerability and the persistence of the Palestinian armed struggle.
● Since the outbreak of the war, the Israeli government has chosen the path of “ultimate victory” that entailed large-scale war crimes, leading to the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from Gaza, while the opposition parties seek to return to the futile and dangerous path of “conflict management”.
● Despite significant military gains of the war on several fronts, Israel paid unprecedented prices on the political, economic, social and moral levels. Under the most extreme rightwing government in its history, Israel is also unable to translate these gains into any kind of victory but remains trapped in a limbo
As opposed to other policy papers titled “The Day After,” we argue that vanquishing the Palestinians or reoccupying territories would bring Israel no peace, stability, or prosperity to Israel
● The peacemaking and reconciliation option has been rejected by consecutive Israeli governments over the last 25 years, since the failure of the Camp David process and the Second Intifada, based on the argument that there was “no partner for peace” on the Palestinian side. Currently, once again, the Israeli public has not been presented with a viable alternative.
● On the other hand, in recent decades, most Arab governments have shown willingness to recognize Israel and promoted peace initiatives, including formal peace agreements and the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative. Nationalist Islamic movements, including Hezbollah, Hamas, and the revolutionary regime in Iran, have acted to derail political agreements using violence towards Israel. However, we argue that under certain circumstances, they may also be willing to accept a just Israeli-Palestinian agreement that would bring about Palestinian sovereignty and independence.
● We argue that the choice of peacemaking and historic reconciliation is viable and that a secure and prosperous future for Israelis and Palestinians depends on it. To move toward conflict resolution, Israel and its allies must assume responsibility for the longstanding occupation and the current crisis, notwithstanding the direct responsibility of Hamas for the October 7 attack.
● As basic principles for a peacemaking policy, we propose, among other things, an immediate end to the war in Gaza and regional de-escalation; security for all people between the river and the sea; an end to Israeli violence and Jewish settlements in the West Bank; Palestinian independence and sovereignty as a precondition for a political process; education for peace and tolerance in both societies; and international guarantees providing an organizational and financial envelope for a just resolution to the conflict.
● While various Israeli and international policy documents have discussed the day after the war, we believe this day would not arrive following an ultimate defeat of the Palestinian armed struggle. The day after is today.
Executive Summary
The attack led by Hamas on October 7 plunged the State of Israel into the most severe crisis in its history. This crisis involved unprecedented fatalities, physical injuries, collective and individual trauma, captives and hostages, de-facto evacuation of territory in southern and northern Israel, economic downturn, sociopolitical turmoil, and a deep sense of insecurity among Israeli citizens.
The crisis also involved the unprecedented destruction that Israel inflicted on human life, property, and civilian infrastructure in Gaza and elsewhere in the region, followed by international condemnation and sanctions.
The attack and the ensuing war have bred a widespread discourse in Israel about the misconception that allowed the attack to happen. The government discourse seeks to persuade the Israeli public that the only way to survive and prosper is “ultimate victory” over Hamas.
Coined and regurgitated by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, this notion has been presented under several titles, including the “plan of defeat” (2017) by the extreme rightwing politician and Finance Minister, Czar of the West Bank in the Defense Ministry, Bezalel Smotrich. The political opposition, on the other hand, aims to return to the conflict management policy. Both sides in the Israeli political map, then, reject the idea of conflict resolution and peacemaking.
A parallel discourse by Israeli experts has produced several policy papers discussing the day after the war. These documents are replete with analogies between the Israel-Hamas war and the Second World War, suggesting that Israeli policies following its victory should resemble postwar reforms in defeated Germany and Japan.
We find these comparisons irrelevant. Choosing 1945 Europe as a model hugely overstates Israel’s power, ignores the Palestinians’ statelessness and struggle for self-determination, and reenacts Israel’s past and failed attempts to “reeducate” Palestinian society, partially integrate it into the Israeli economy, control it through local potentates, “encourage emigration”, and other euphemisms.
The alternative is not a delusional victory but rather a serious, honest, and viable peaceful resolution with the Palestinians and Arab states
The Forum for Regional Thinking, a group of Israeli scholars exploring Israel in its regional context in cooperation with the Van Leer Jerusalem Institute, rejects the common Israeli perception that hostility between Jews and Arabs is an existential or inevitable condition. We believe that the conflict management policy has failed, and provide our own explanation for the October 7 failure in the Hebrew version of this paper.
There, we further elaborate why the alternative is not a delusional victory but rather a serious, honest, and viable peaceful resolution with the Palestinians and Arab states.
October 7 was not only a result of tactical or military failure to provide timely intelligence, alert policymakers, or deploy enough troops. The long-term policy of conflict management was fundamental to this failure: deepening the occupation in the West Bank while fanning the flames of a broad regional conflict with Iran and its allies and proxies.
On multiple fronts, Israel used military violence in high and low intensities in lieu of political, internationally recognized political agreements. In the Occupied Territories, Israel over-relied on technologies for surveillance and oppression of the Palestinian population and pursued a divide-and-rule policy that strengthened Hamas over the Palestinian Authority. Regionally, over the past fifteen years, Israel’s rightwing governments attacked Iran, Syria, and Lebanon either directly or indirectly (described by the former Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot as “the campaign between wars”), fueling a public panic in Israel about the “Shia Crescent.”
This was an integral part of conflict management vis-a-vis the Palestinian, as the military-security establishment tended to exaggerate Iran’s interest in “annihilating” Israel, while underestimating the effects of the occupation on the Palestinians and Hamas’ power and motivation to provoke a full-scale clash.
Apart from proving Israel’s rivals to be far less united and powerful to begin with, these achievements did not produce sustainable security for Israelis in the absence of a strategy for peace
The Israeli focus on Iran’s intentions to “eliminate Israel” ignores the fact that its overarching interest has been to buttress of its own deterrent power and ensure the survival of its regime. Ironically, the alarmist Iranian-threat discourse cultivated by rightwing governments is shared by the mainstream political opposition; both supporters and critics of the Netanyahu regime believe that Israel should have launched a preemptive war in its southern and northern borders long before the recent Hamas offensive.
Conversely, we argue that such an attack on Iran and its allies would have been inconsistent with Israel’s conflict management policy, as it would have bolstered internal, regional and international calls to end the conflict, and thus was consciously avoided.
The October 7 offensive heralded a new era in the history of the Middle East by eliminating the option of ignoring the Palestinians. Today, Israel faces only two options: peace with the Palestinians and the region or eliminating any Palestinian national expression and protracted war and ethnic cleansing.
As the Netanyahu regime pushes for partial or complete ethnic cleansing, Zionist opposition parties and Israel’s international supporters delude themselves in thinking it is possible to turn the clock back to the previous conflict management policy.
Since the outbreak of the war, Israel has weakened Iran and its allies (Hamas, Hezbollah and, indirectly, the former Assad regime in Syria) militarily and politically. Apart from proving its rivals to be far less united and powerful to begin with, these achievements did not produce sustainable security for Israelis in the absence of a strategy for peace. They exacted unprecedented prices in life, limb, and the wellbeing of Israeli citizens, as Israel drifted further away from the liberal-democratic order.
We offer an alternative to the intimidation discourse of Israel’s rightwing government by analyzing aspects of the relations between Israel and various Arab and Islamic powers in the region
The protracted military campaign in Gaza without an exit strategy also meant abandoning Israeli hostages and prolonging their captivity, leading large segments of the Israeli public to lose trust in their government. This only deepened Israel’s collective trauma and sociopolitical crisis, all the while turning Israel into an authoritarian Sparta.
The unprecedented destruction and indiscriminate killing of civilians in Gaza, regarded by the relevant academic milieu, the human rights community, and the liberal international community as genocide, put Israel’s international standing at risk despite the unwavering support of the United States.
Israel escalated its military interventions in Lebanon and Syria and expanded ethnic cleansing policies in the West Bank, expecting the Trump administration to announce a plan to annex at least parts of the West Bank and deal a final blow to any viable Palestinian state. According to recent polls, almost all of Israel’s Jewish population supports the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from Gaza, although there is a disagreement on the practicality of Trump’s transfer plan.
In the full Hebrew paper, we argue that the opposite path must be taken – peace, justice, and historic reconciliation. We offer an alternative to the intimidation discourse of Israel’s rightwing government by analyzing aspects of the relations between Israel and various Arab and Islamic powers in the region, including the Arab states, the PLO, Hamas, Iran and Hezbollah.
We contend that since the 1970s, most Arab governments have come to terms with the existence of Israel and promoted conflict resolution based on UN Security Council Resolution 242, as reflected in the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative. Some countries – Egypt, Jordan, and later Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Morocco – have signed formal peace agreements with Israel. Others, such as Saudi Arabia, are willing to enter into political agreements with Israel, subject to the establishment of a Palestinian state.
Nationalist Islamic movements, including Hezbollah, Hamas, and the revolutionary regime in Iran, have acted through military means and internal violence to disrupt political agreements between Israel and the Palestinians. However, they are also willing to accept a fair Israeli-Palestinian agreement.
Militant Palestinian organizations have demonstrated the strongest opposition to any political agreement, due to the existential nature of their struggle under conditions of occupation, but their popular legitimacy and power rest on the occupation, deprivation of rights and continuous dispossession of Palestinians.
From the Israeli perspective, the past and current peace agreements have survived the present war. Indeed, some of their signatories have even offered Israel protection from Iranian attacks. From the Palestinian perspective, however, these agreements, especially the Abraham Accords, have normalized Arab states’ relations with Israel while sidelining them. In 2023, the looming US-sponsored peace agreement with Saudi Arabia threatened to deal a final blow to Palestinian aspirations, triggering the Hamas attack, among other factors.
We believe that the strategic defeat of Iran and its allies has eliminated the last pretext for the conflict management approach, enabling Israel to make historic decisions in favor of a fair and just peace with the Palestinians, which in turn will contribute to stabilizing the entire region. We therefore propose viable principles for a peacemaking Israeli policy that can be adopted regardless of the specific political solution to the occupation.
many Israelis may consider these principles utopian, futile, or even dangerous. However, as Israeli scholars studying the Middle East, we are convinced that they undergird a sustainable, judicious, and forward-looking policy
These principles are based on our view that Israel’s relations with the Palestinians are asymmetrical, and that it therefore bears responsibility for changing them. These relations are characterized by patterns of superiority and supremacy, occupation and control, which must undergo radical transformation.
The principles we espouse include an immediate end to the war in Gaza (rather than a temporary pause); an agreement to release Israeli hostages, military captives, and Palestinian prisoners; regional de-escalation; a complete halt to the Jewish settlement in the Occupied Territories; Palestinian independence and sovereignty as a condition for a political process rather than its objective; education for peace and tolerance in both societies; Israeli accountability, acknowledgment, and compensation for past wrongdoing; Israeli and international responsibility for the prosperity of the Palestinian people; security for all the country’s inhabitants; and international guarantees for peace in the Middle East.
Trapped in the misconception of “no partner for peace,” many Israelis may consider these principles utopian, futile, or even dangerous. However, as Israeli scholars studying Israel/Palestine and the Middle East, we are convinced that they undergird a sustainable, judicious, and forward-looking policy, unlike those of the rightwing government or the centrist opposition, which are based solely on power.
As opposed to other recent policy papers titled “The Day After,” we argue that vanquishing the Palestinians or reoccupying Gaza and the West Bank would bring Israel no peace, stability, or prosperity to Israel. “The day after” is, in fact, the crisis unfolding before our very eyes. To turn this page, we must part with basic assumptions deeply rooted in Israeli politics and psyche. The path of peace has yet to be taken.
Editors (English version): Dr. Assaf David and Dr. Smadar Ben-Natan
Editors (Hebrew version): Dr. Eli Osheroff and Dr. Assaf David
Writing and consulting: Fellows of the Forum for Regional Thinking: Dr. Ali al-Awar, independent scholar; Dr. Avi-ram Tzoreff, Open University; Dr. Smadar Ben-Natan, University of Oregon; Dr. Assaf David, Van Leer Institute and Hebrew University; Dr. Leena Dallasheh, independent scholar; Dr. Ameer Fakhoury, Polonsky Academy, Van Leer Institute, and Haifa University; Dr. Dotan Halevi, Tel Aviv University; Dr. Shmuel Lederman, Haifa University and Open University; Liel Magen, group facilitator and political activist; Prof. Yoni Mendel, Van Leer Institute and Ben-Gurion University; Dr. Eli Osheroff, Tel Aviv University; Dr. Yaniv Ronen, independent scholar; Prof. Lior Sternfeld, Pennsylvania State University; Aviv Tatarsky, investigative activist; Dr. Eran Tzidkiyahu, geopolitical instructor, consultant and lecturer, Hebrew University; Dr. Limor Yehuda, Van Leer Institute and Hebrew University.
The Hebrew version of the paper (available here) includes selected bibliography in Hebrew and English. Hyperlinked references in the English version have been adjusted to sources in English, except for a few sources available only in Hebrew.
Link to the full list of endorsements (in Hebrew)
Translation to English and Style Editing: Ilana Gild and Ami Asher
Photos: Reuters
Cover photo: Pixabay
Design: Studio Naomi Rozett
Press inquiries: Daniel Jonas, Director of Spokesmanship and Public Relations, Van Leer Jerusalem Institute, [email protected], +972-54-6305101
Read the Full Document
To turn this page, we must part with basic assumptions deeply rooted in Israeli politics and psyche. The path of peace has yet to be taken
Endorsing The Present Day Document
Dr. Thabet Abu Raas, Political Geography, Van Leer Jerusalem Institute
Dr. Rawia Aburabia, Law and Gender, Sapir Academic College
Dr. Sarai Aharoni, Gender Studies Program, Ben Gurion University of the Negev
Prof. Muhammad al-Atawneh, Middle East Studies, Ben Gurion University of the Negev
Prof. Nurit Alfasi, Environmental, Geoinformatics and Urban Planning Sciences, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, The Israeli Geographical Association
Prof. Yoav Alon, Department of Middle Eastern and African History, Tel Aviv University
Dr. Merav Amir, Political Geography, Queen’s University
Prof. Meir Amor, Sociology and Anthropology, Concordia University
Dr. Shaul Arieli, Reasercher of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Reichman University
Prof. Nir Avieli, Sociology and Anthropology, Ben Gurion University of the Negev
Dr. Sivan Balslev, Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Prof. Daniel Bar-Tal, Political Psychology, Tel Aviv University
Prof. On Barak, Middle Eastern and African History, Tel Aviv University
Prof. Oren Barak, The Department of Political Science, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Dr. Nir Barak, Politics and Government, Ben Gurion University of the Negev
Dr. Tamar Barkay, Sociology and Anthropology, Tel-Hai College
Prof. Omer Bartov, Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Brown University
Prof. Orit Bashkin, Modern Middle Eastern History, The University of Chicago
Dr. Moshe Behar, Arabic and Middle Eastern Studies, The University of Manchester
Dr. Nirit Ben Ari, Political Science
Prof. Eran Ben Elia, The Department of Environmental, Geoinformatics and Urban Planning Sciences, Ben Gurion University of the Negev
Yotam Ben Meir, Researcher of binational movements, Open University
Prof. Lihi Ben Shitrit, Israel Studies, New York University
Prof. Avner Ben-Amos, School of Education, Tel Aviv University
Prof. Zvi Ben-Dor Benite, History and Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies, New York University
Prof. Orna Ben-Naftali, International Law, College of Management Academic Studies and Van Leer Jerusalem Institute
Prof. Guy Ben-Porat, Politics and Government, Ben Gurion University of the Negev
Prof. Ayelet Ben-Yishai, Department of English Language and Literature, University of Haifa
Prof. Yael Berda, Sociology and Anthropology, The Hebrew University
Prof. Louise Bethlehem, Program in Cultural Studies, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Prof. Hillel Cohen, Department of Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Prof. Yossi Dahan, Law, College of Law and Business, Adva Center
Dr. Natalie Davidson, International Law, Tel Aviv University
Dr. Hilla Dayan, Sociology, University of Amsterdam
Dr. Daniel De Malach, Sociology, Sapir Academic College
Dr. Avner Dinur, Jewish Studies, Sapir Academic College
Prof. Arie Dubnov, Israel Studies, The George Washington University
Prof. Ron Dudai, Sociology and Anthropology, Ben Gurion University of the Negev
Dr. Noga Efrati, History of the Middle East, The Open University
Dr. Yiftah Elazar, Department of Political Science, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Prof. David Enoch, Law and Philosophy, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Prof. Michael Eppel, The Department of Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies, Haifa University
Dr. Yuval Eylon, Philosophy, Ben Gurion University of the Negev
Prof. Celia Fassberg, Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Prof. Eran Feitelson, Geography, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Prof. Dani Filc, Politics and Government, Ben Gurion University of the Negev
Dr. Yoni Furas, Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies, Haifa University
Dr. Noam Gal, Sociology, Political Science and Communication, Open Univeristy
Prof. Itzhak Galnoor, Political Science, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Van Leer Jerusalem Institute
Dr. Nir Gazit, Behavioral Sciences, Ruppin Academic College
Prof. Avner Giladi, Department of Middle East and Islamic Studies, Haifa University
Dr. Shahar Gindi, Education, Beit Berl College
Dr. Snait Gissis, Cohn Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Ideas, Tel Aviv University
Prof. Motti Golani, Jewish History, Tel Aviv University
Prof. Amos Goldberg, Jewish History and Contemporary Jewry, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Dr. Anat Greenstein, Disability Studies, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Prof. Lev Grinberg, Sociology and Anthropology, Ben Gurion University of the Negev
Prof. Raphael Grinberg, Archaeology, Tel Aviv University
Prof. Ruth HaCohen Pinczower, Musicology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Dr. Yohai Hakak, Social Work, Brunel University of London
Prof. Eran Halperin, Social Psychology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Dr. Ariel Handel, Interdisciplinary researcher, Bezalel Academy of Arts
Dr. Ido Harari, Jewish History, Van Leer Jerusalem Institute
Dr. Rula Hardal, Political Science, A Land For All, The Hartman Institute
Prof. Oren Harman, Science, Technology and Society, Bar Ilan University, Van Leer Jerusalem Institute
Prof. Yoram Harpaz, Education, Beit Berl College
Prof. Guy Harpaz, Law and International Relations, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Prof. Galit Hasan-Rokem, Hebrew Literature, Aggadah and Folk Literature, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Prof. Shay Hazkani, Israel Studies, University of Maryland
Prof. Oded Heilbronner, European History, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Prof. Hanna Herzog, Sociology and Anthropology, Tel Aviv University, Van Leer Jerusalem Institute
Prof. Ze’ev Herzog, Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Cultures, Tel Aviv University
Prof. Piki Ish-Shalom, Department of International Relations, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Prof. Abigail Jacobson, Department of Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Dr. Wurud Jayusi, Education, Beit Berl College
Prof. Arie Kacowicz, International Relations, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Dr. Yoav Kapshuk, Political Science, Kinneret Academic College
Dr. Nadeem Karkabi, Anthropology, University of Haifa
Prof. Shaul Katzir, History and Philosophy of Science and Ideas, Tel Aviv University
Prof. Asher Kaufman, Middle East History, University of Notre Dame
Prof. Menachem Klein, Reasercher of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Bar-Ilan University
Dr. Hagar Kotef, Political Theory, SOAS
Prof. Liat Kozma, Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Prof. Arie Krampf, Political Economy and International Studies, The Academic College of Tel Aviv Yaffo
Dr. Miri Lavi, Political Ecology, Arava Institute for Environmental Studies, Tel Aviv University
Dr. Ephraim Lavie, Researcher of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, The Institute for National Security Studies
Prof. David Levi-Faur, Public Policy, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Prof. Yagil Levy, Military Sociology, The Open University
Dr. Alon Liel, Conflict Resolution
Prof. Nimrod Luz, History of the Middle East, Kinneret Academic College
Prof. Itamar Mann, International Law, Haifa University
Dr. Eilat Maoz, Anthropology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Prof. Avishai Margalit, Philosophy, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Van Leer Jerusalem Institute
Prof. Dan Miodownik, Political Science and International Relations, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Prof. Sagit Mor, Law, Haifa University
Dr. Lee Mordechai, History, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Prof. Isaac (Yanni) Nevo, Philosophy, Ben Gurion University of the Negev
Prof. Orit Ouaknine-Yekutieli, Middle Eastern Studies, Ben Gurion University of the Negev
Dr. Sarah Ozacky-Lazar, Researcher of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Van Leer Jerusalem Insitute
Dr. Roni Porat, Social Psychology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Prof. Haggai Ram, Middle Eastern Studies, Ben Gurion University of the Negev
Dr. Moriel Ram, Israel Studies, University College London
Adam Raz, Researcher of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Akevot Institute for Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Research
Prof. Amnon Raz-Krakotzkin, Jewish History, Ben Gurion University of the Negev
Prof. Liran Razinsky, The Program for Hermeneutics and Cultural Studies, Bar-Ilan University
Prof. Motti Regev, Cultural Sociology,The Open University of Israel
Prof. Ruth Roded, Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem,
Prof. Freddie Rokem, Theatre Arts, Tel Aviv University
Prof. Avi Rubin, Middle East Studies, Ben Gurion University of the Negev
Prof. Orna Sasson-Levy, Military Sociology,Bar-Ilan Univeristy
Prof. Avraham Sela, international relations
Prof. Rakefet Sela-Sheffy, Semiotics and Culture, Tel Aviv University
Dr. Itamar Shachar, Sociology, Hasselt University
Prof. Ido Shahar, Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies, Haifa University
Dr. Ran Shauli, Asian Studies, Bar-Ilan University
Prof. Relli Shechter, Middle East Studies, Ben Gurion University of the Negev
Dr. Varda Shiffer, Education, Van Leer Jerusalem Institute
Dr. Itay Snir, Political Science, Yezre’el Valley Academic College and Tel Aviv University
Dr. Oded Steinberg, European Studies, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Dr. Matti Steinberg, Researcher of the Israeli-Palastinian Conflict, former senior analyst at the Israeli security forces
Prof. Yael Sternhell, American Studies, Tel Aviv University
Prof. Gila Stopler, Law, College of Law and Business
Prof. Asher Susser, Middle Eastern History, Tel Aviv University
Dr. Samer Sweid, Political Science, Arab Center for Alternative Planning
Prof. Daniella Talmon-Heller, Middle Eastern Studies, Ben Gurion University of the Negev
Prof. Erez Tzfadia, Public Policy, The Open University of Israel
Yohanan Tzoreff, Researcher of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, The Institute for National Security Studies
Prof. Yair Wallach, Israeli Studies, SOAS
Prof. Itzchak Weismann, Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies, Haifa University
Prof. Avner Wishnitzer, Middle Eastern and African History, Tel Aviv University
Dr. Shaul Yanai, Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies, Haifa University
Prof. Oren Yiftachel, Political Geography, Ben Gurion University of the Negev
Prof. Yuval Yonay, Sociology, Haifa University
Dr. Amnon Yuval, History, Hakibbutzim College
Prof. Dror Ze’evi, Middle Eastern Studies, Ben Gurion University of the Negev
Eldad Zion, PhD candidate, Hebrew Literature, Ben Gurion University of the Negev
