Tomorrow Is Yesterday: Life, Death, and the Pursuit of Peace in Israel/Palestine

by Hussein Agha, Robert Malley

A Best Book of 2025
The New Yorker • Foreign Affairs • NPR • Foreign Policy • Responsible Statecraft

Two insiders explain why the Israeli–Palestinian peace process failed, and anticipate what lies ahead.

On October 7, 2023, Hamas fighters killed more than eleven hundred Israelis and took more than two hundred hostages, prompting an Israeli response that has in turn taken tens of thousands of lives and devastated the Gaza Strip. Why did this happen, and can anything be done to grant peace and justice to Israelis and Palestinians alike?

In Tomorrow Is Yesterday, veteran negotiators Hussein Agha and Robert Malley offer a personal and bracing perspective on how the hopes of the Oslo Peace Process became the horrors of the present. Drawing on their experience advising the Palestinian leadership (Arafat and Abbas) and US presidents (Clinton, Obama, and Biden) and their participation in secret talks over decades, Agha and Malley offer candid portraits of leading figures and an interpretation of the conflict that exposes the delusions of all sides. They stress that the two-state solution became a global goal only when it was no longer viable; that U.S. officials preferred technical schemes to a frank reckoning with the past; that Hamas’s onslaught and Israel’s war of destruction were not historical exceptions but historical reenactments; and that the gaps separating Israelis and Palestinians have less to do with territorial allocation than with history and emotions.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Politics, Middle East, Israel, War, Jewish

250 pages, Kindle Edition

First published September 16, 2025

Reviews

[Venneh · Rating 3 out of 5]

This may have suffered from reading it so closely to a book that acknowledges the Palestinian struggle, but this delves (to a point) to the US mediated peace process between Israel and Palestine over the last thirty years or so, given that our two authors were intimately involved, and why they failed on both sides and then conveniently fails to look too closely at the last three years or so. I understand that's because they haven't been too involved in the last three years, but it still feels pretty cowardly to give your perspective on everything happening up till that point, because they clearly have one. Solid read but isnt willing to take a stand.

[Taylor · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good explanation of why a two-state solution has historically been something imposed on the situation from outside, despite not making any sense and despite it being something neither Palestinians nor Israelis really want.

Good for insight into how Palestinians and Israelis think, the logic behind their views and their historical contexts presented in a clear, comprehensive, objective manner.

Good, I suppose, if you’re a reader who needed convincing that this is not a hard conflict to understand, it’s just something that fundamentally can’t be solved by American chauvinism; it, in fact, has been hurt by it.

But not good at all for saying anything of substance about why readers should care, or perhaps do something to pressure our government to stop perpetuating it; not good at all, by presenting the Palestinian view (of the Nakba and everything following as a genocide) as just one of many ways to view it, as if it could be argued any other way. At least the authors had the balls to additionally use the words “apartheid,” “ethnic cleansing,” “settler-colonialism.” I just wish they meant it when they said it.

Mainly, good for the overall history of the peace process since the Camp David Accords. which is as interesting as it is infuriating.

[Jaschi · Rating 4 out of 5]

interesting descriptions of the actors involved based on their insider information, very heavy on narratives (with focus on one side's); it is hard for me to believe that they are as central to the conflict as the book seems to imply, although they must play a major role

-3/4 for not distinguishing radical ideas and actors from moderate ones, and lack of estimates about their spreads

[Patrick Fassnacht · Rating 3 out of 5]

a good read that adds to the knowledge, the context, and in shaping how we all got here.
saying that, having read 6 or 7 recent books recently in trying to better understand things, this one was simply Good.
several other reviewers speak about the middle-of-the-road approach.. and the seeming reticence in taking any meaty or substantive position on much of anything throughout.. .. . . while i admire their attempts to give insight and perspective to 'both sides' along with other players in this historical tragic reality.. in posturing to be Informative and Factual and Unbiased... they lost whatever voice they really had.

a bland and attempted-impartiality is all well and good.. unless, or until, it isn't.
then, it simply seems week. and shallow attempt to be helpful in any real way.
certain things are not impartial. some things are simply black or white-- or, at least, tinged with some human moral reality. avoiding calling something what it really is... is simply not helpful.

definitely informative. absolutely adds to the conversation and informative.
just lacking an ample dose of confidence in its own voice. and losing its import through its overly-bland and overly-neutral handling of things.

saying that, i am tempered by 6 or 7 other reads and perspectives recently. each one of which has shared a TON of insight and learning that has been huge. this one very much included.

[Sanjida · Rating 4 out of 5]

More an extended, often repetitive, essay about the failure (inevitable) of the two state proposal for Jewish Israeli and Palestinian national ambitions. Worth reading for cutting through the bullshit of mainstream media and politicians. The authors do not provide a roadmap out, other than try something else, something both peoples actually want.

[Milena Pavlova- McCartney · Rating 5 out of 5]

I just finished reading “Tomorrow Is Yesterday: Life, Death, and the Pursuit of Peace in Israel/Palestine” by Robert Malley and Hussein Agha. It is a book that I wish I had had at my desk as a young reporter covering the Middle East.
For anyone watching the news from Israel and Palestine and wondering, "How did we get here?", this book provides an essential perspective and answers. “Tomorrow Is Yesterday: Life, Death, and the Pursuit of Peace in Israel/Palestine, a compelling and eloquently written firsthand account of the conflict's history, is authored by two individuals with deep, personal ties to the peace process: Hussein Agha and Robert Malley.
Both Agha and Malley are respected scholars and diplomats with more than four decades of experience in the Middle East. Hussein Agha, an associate at St. Antony's College, University of Oxford, was a principal behind-the-scenes negotiator for the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and an advisor to its chairman, Yasser Arafat. Robert Malley, a lecturer at Yale University, has served as a key U.S. envoy for the region under the Clinton, Obama, and Biden administrations.
Their upbringings almost destined them for this work. Malley's father, a prominent Egyptian-Jewish journalist and anti-Zionist, introduced his son to Yasser Arafat. Agha was a close advisor to Arafat himself. This unique access provides the book with an unparalleled view of the events.
Tomorrow is Yesterday takes you behind the scenes of the Israel-Palestine conflict, from the Oslo Accords to the present day. It guides you through the intimate details of events on the highest political stage that led to high hopes and shattered dreams, missed opportunities, and repeated betrayals and promises with no guarantees.
The book is a persuasive and insightful tool for anyone seeking answers and a glimpse into the future. The authors show us that even amid devastation and the impossible "two-state" or multinational single-state solutions, there is a possible, albeit painful and costly, path forward.

[Blaine · Rating 3 out of 5]

Like many books I have read on recent history and current affairs, I thought that this book did not tell me very much more than I have already learned from my other reading and could have been condensed to about 25% of its length, so I ended up reading the first two chapters, the last two chapters and skimmed the rest.

I thought it gave a good statement of the complexity of solving the problems of Israel and the Palestinians and presented some good thinking on alternative structures to the two state solution. The fact that it is "unrealistic" in the immediate future does not make it naive or unwanted. The world and peoples' opinions about what is possible, good or desirable can change in surprising ways in shorter time spans than we think possible at the time.

One point I read in this book and elsewhere that I have never understood is the assertion that the extremists make deals with fellow extremists on the other side more productively than with moderates. I just don't see this actually happening. Yes, Nixon went to China, Begin did a deal with Sadat and Reagan got Mr Gorbachev to "tear down the wall" (a year after Reagan left office, though not really through negotiation), but did any of them succeed in making the kinds of transformational rearrangements that lasted? The Middle East is still in turmoil, and Russia and China and the US are still fundamentally at odds. They produced a cold peace subject to continuing high defense expenditures and flare-ups. Contrast this with the peace negotiated by Clinton and Blair in Northern Ireland, and the transformation of Europe under the Marshall Plan. I'm open to counter-argument, but I just don't see it.

[Tim Driscoll · Rating 4 out of 5]

Less of a history of the conflict, and more a deep look at the feelings held by both sides and the inconsistent ideas that make progress difficult. I thought it was really interesting to hear about their concept of the "dual-mind" that many Palestinians and Israelis hold where the ideas of violence and peace coexist in a way, and are not mutually exclusive, and how that concept is extremely difficult for many outsiders looking in to accept. I also found it to be the most illuminating book I've read on the Palestinian national movement, its inner workings, and the deep held beliefs that make it what it is today - in other books I've read about the conflict this topic has only been explored from a factual, historical perspective and less so from the subjective perspective of the people involved.

[David Williams · Rating 4 out of 5]

Two long-time peace process advisors, one to the United States, the other to the Palestinians, provide an insider's account of the many missteps that have occurred in Israel-Palestine peace negotiations over the past 40 years. They argue that the two-state solution never stood a chance given the often obliquely communicated preferences of the two parties and the United States' reluctance and/or inability to understand the their wishes. They also highlight the failure of the Israelis to anticipate the attacks of October 7 despite clear and public telegraphing by Hamas. Hindsight provides clarity, but their arguments suggest that peace mechanisms that were less bold than a two-state solution could have yielded results, but the time for those options may have passed.

[Sofia Allami · Rating 1 out of 5]

Very biased answer one sided view of the conflict. if you don't have much background or knowledge on the history of the region, it can be be very misleading....

[Cole Himali · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you're going to read a book about Israel/Palestine, it's this. It is by far the best book I have read on the topic. Both of their expertise is unmatched to the extent that they can give inside perspectives into peace talks without having to worry about their political images in the way that Jimmy Carter's book would have. They gave such a good synopsis of the history of the conflict with the key points and painted a full picture of each leader's character. Additionally, there ideas for possible ways to move forward were very innovative without the assumption that it is the end all be all the same way the two-state solution is.

[Annarosa · Rating 5 out of 5]

Game over for American imperialism

[Myles · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found this book to be one of the more honest and knowledgable appraisals of the prospects for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Today its prospects are nil. Not today. Not tomorrow. Not in 1,000 years.

The book is also an honest appreciation of America as a broker for peace in the Middle East. America has for a variety of reasons been a terrible broker for peace. For one: its presidential election cycle is too short. For another: American perceptions of the Palestinian catastrophe have never been taken seriously. And for a third: for domestic politics, America must always give in to the Israeli prime minister no matter who he or she is.

I personally have almost never been a champion of a two state solution and I remain antagonistic to the idea to this day.

On a simple, practical level, in this world, the land we are talking about is simply too small and resource poor to sustain two independent states. Government costs money. A lot of it. And it’s hard to get right.

I’ve spent time there. Believe me: it’s a small place.

I come from a big place with lots of resources: Canada. We struggle to enforce our sovereignty, and support the aspirations of our people.

Contrary to popular belief: we need the cooperation of each other to make it work. Even (especially?) Canada depends on the goodwill of its neighbours.

Here’s another reason I remain opposed to a two state solution: my reading of the Middle East is that it has a lot of such disputes, maybe not exactly the same as this one but many which are longstanding and many in which subdividing the land further (I’m thinking Kurds, Yazidis, Yemenese, to quote a few examples) doesn’t really help people. It just further divides affections.

Although the big powers created mirrors of their states following WWI, the model never made sense and is making less sense by the day.

Small blocks of very rich people control the Middle East and that’s not likely to change any time soon.

In the city I grew up in many, many different people have learned to get along in small blocks with a few basic rules. When people play by the rules everybody gets to sleep in peace. It’s when the rules become ends in themselves that, I believe, is when things go off the rails.

[Colin Matthew · Rating 3 out of 5]

It was okay. Wasn't as worth the hype that the *liberal intelligentsia* was touting. The first 3/4 of it was a look at history of the conflict generally, history of the negotiations and the US role in that, along with criticisms of how things have turned. The writing in this wasn't very gripping. The last fourth of the book was probably the best part. The authors, involved in negotiations for the last few decades, I believe tried their best to stay neutral and analytical of both camp's genuine emotions, fears, and desires, although I believe some who read this would see it as leaning toward a "pro-palestine" viewpoint, which is a bit simplistic in the grand scheme of things. Especially considering the consistent criticism the authors have toward Palestinian negotiators and actors. Important to remember, especially in the way things are discussed today in such black and white terms, that explaining something is not excusing or justifying something. It did feel like the book spent more time on the psyche of the Palestinian viewpoint, which is reasonable in many ways, but could have maybe been a more complete work if a bit evened out in the area of explaining both group's aspirations and how that drives things. Overall, fine. I would go 2.5/5 if possible. But closer to a 3 than a 2.

[Ted · Rating 1 out of 5]

horribly biased without supporting data/evidence.

[A B · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hussein Agha and Robert Malley's Tomorrow is Yesterday is frustrating because it's kind of both redundant AND necessary. It’s diffuse and incisive, elegiac and diagnostic.

The title captures their thesis: "Tomorrow is yesterday because yesterday—before the pretense that history matters little and before sanitized negotiations between two unequal parties mediated by a powerful third that sides with the stronger of them—is where Israelis and Palestinians are." The Oslo peace process was an aberration, a "foreign, externally promoted notion" that became a "historical detour leading to a political dead end." October 7 wasn't an anomaly but "the past's formidable revenge."

For anyone who’s followed the news for the past thirty years, the first half of this book feels like reading back issues of The New York Review of Books. The Camp David revisionism, the critique of American mediation, and the documentation of settlement expansion have all been said before, often by Agha and Malley themselves. And yet the value lies in the work’s comprehensiveness. The book is an authoritative record written by insiders who can cite the history of the negotiations chapter and verse.

One of the book's strengths is its portrait of American mediators as catastrophically ineffectual. Biased toward Israel, impatient with history and narrative, focused on technical fixes, limited by the ticking clock of four-year terms. The United States "showed undue deference to Israel, excessive bias against Palestinians, a constant desire to exert regional primacy." Clinton could be a "master of words yet at a loss when it came to their deeper meaning."

Reading their critique of America’s role in the conflict, I couldn’t help thinking of an article I recently read that argued that if America withdraws from the conflict entirely, we'll be left with a zero-sum game between Palestinians and Israelis with no one to tell the Israelis to stop.

The book's thesis feels a little elusive. Firstly, it’s diagnostic: The two-state solution is dead. It was always an "outsider's image" designed for "Israeli liberal Zionists and secular Palestinian moderates" but unable to spread beyond narrow ranks. Secondly, it is prescriptive, and this is where Agha and Malley become maddeningly vague: They call for rethinking participants, including hard-liners excluded from Oslo, considering unconventional alternatives like Jordanian confederation or binational arrangements. But they refuse to endorse specifics: "It would make no sense to suggest a general outline of an Israeli–Palestinian agreement because the prospect is wholly academic, detached from reality."

They're right that focusing on 1967 is arbitrary, that American impatience with "narrative issues" was catastrophic, that excluding religious Zionists and Islamists guaranteed failure. But what does this mean in practice? Truth commissions? Open-ended talks? They don't argue one way or the other.

Reading Tomorrow is Yesterday after Sari Nusseibeh's Once Upon a Country made the sadness of the situation all the more acute. Nusseibeh was exactly the kind of Palestinian moderate Agha and Malley describe as unable to spread beyond narrow ranks. His book ends with the same recognition: the fairy tale about awakening the sleeping Crusader knight remains unfinished "because after decades of effort, the magical formula for solving the Israeli–Palestinian conflict seemed more elusive than ever."

Agha and Malley's answer is less a solution than an acceptance of irresolution. "Optimists are pessimists if they can promise only more of the same. Pessimists are optimists if they break free of orthodoxy." The search for a solution with clean borders and clear sovereignty is itself the problem. The conflict doesn't resolve; it transforms.

Nusseibeh mourns specific lost opportunities. Agha and Malley mourn the entire framework. The peace process wasn't a noble effort that failed; it was flawed from the start. By excluding history, negotiating through unrepresentative moderates, treating it as bilateral when it's regional, and rushing toward solutions when wounds needed acknowledgment, the entire enterprise was doomed.

Agha and Malley offer no alternative except to wait for new conditions, think new thoughts, include new voices. "Time horizons will stretch out, impervious to foreign calendars or US presidential terms, eyes fixed where they long gazed: on the ancient past and faraway future. Jews did not forget their attachment to the Holy Land after two thousand years; Palestinians will not forget in a few decades."

The book left me feeling a little unmoored. Agha and Malley demolish the peace process without replacing it. But perhaps that's the point. Perhaps we need to sit in the ruins without the comfort of solutions before anything new can emerge.

"Only then might tomorrow be sweeter than yesterday."

[Harold · Rating 5 out of 5]

Tomorrow is Yesterday is one of the best books I have read about Israel, Palestine and the peace process, and I have read several. It takes a historical approach, but more than most books looks and the personal, political and psychological problems with the peace process, as well logical two state solution path which the US (but they point out, no one else) has clung to for 50 or more years. As they say: “The Israeli–Palestinian conflict inhabits two worlds at once: worlds of the rational and irrational, of reason and emotion.” The US in our efforts to mediate a two state solution has neglected both the political and emotional realities of the adversaries in repeated efforts to pound the square peg of two state solution into the round hole of peace. After 50 years of failure, in which the US failed to see the Palestinian point of view (and often the Israeli point of view as well) the peace process has lost all meaning and become for the parties a tool to hold on to the status quo.

While much of the book focuses on the failures of the past, albeit in a very different light than other books, at the end it does turn toward the future. As they say, “If the best argument for the two-state solution is that no other outcome will work, then it is not an option with much of a leg to stand on.” So they suggest other potential outcomes of the box options, not so much that they are solutions, but that we all need to think more broadly and inventively about how to address the problem.

[Rachel · Rating 3 out of 5]

Tomorrow is Yesterday is a deep dive into the conflict between Israel and Palestine and particularly the involvement of the United States in attempting to be brokers of peace. I came to this book with a baseline understanding of the history and hoped it would help me be better informed on the topic. While I did learn a lot, it was incredibly dense and hard to get through. I believe this book would be better suited to someone who already has experience with the Palestine/Israel conflict and interest in the U.S. historical involvement. Both the authors are experts in their field and have the experience to show it. But such expertise makes it a difficult jump for the layman trying to get a big picture understanding of what led Israel and Palestine to the conflict there is today. This would be a great read for people within the field of foreign relations and/or conflict in the Middle East just not so great for the average reader for pleasure.

Thank you Farrar, Straus and Giroux and NetGalley for providing a copy of this book in exchange for an honest review. All opinions expressed in this review are my own.

[Jaques · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a wonderfully well written perspective on the Israel-Palestine conflict. The authors self-define as insiders and their historial account and political conclusions attest to their claim. After reading many other historical books about the creation of the state of Israel and the Palestine conflict, I found novel and refreshing perspectives here about the reasons for the failure to reach a political and geographic compromise about its long-dragging war. The authors make a concerted effort to state and critically analyze all involved parties. The described reasons for political failures are soundly exposed. The book is quire contemporaneous by looking at the post September 2023 era. My only disappointment was the brevity at which the possible future options are described, discussed and defended. Perhaps this reflect the current sad reality of the conflict. I was left with the impression that not only tomorrow is yesterday, but it brings no hope beyond the current military tragedy imposed by Israel and the US on the Palestinian population.

[Flynn Ryker · Rating 5 out of 5]

As Potent and Redundant as the Conflict Itself

J.K. Rowling once said she strategically made reading the search for the Horcruxes arduous so the reader could better appreciate the struggle experienced by the characters. Similarly, I feel Hassain and Robert wanted their readers to feel the perpetual - and arguably extraneous - cyclical rhetoric of the conflict in this text. In my opinion, both were well executed. Having said this, the book is very well written, but perhaps a bit too erudite with its vocabulary and seemingly esoteric as an inevitable byproduct. In lay terms, "bring it down a notch."

As for the content, it was exquisite! I knew a little about the key players in the Israel/Palestine conflict and a small portion of the regions general history, but I didn’t know how little I knew till now. Furthermore, I felt the outlined events and opinions issued gave me a deeper understanding of the sentiments held by all parties in ways I did not see coming. Well worth the read, but there was so much I think I need to read it again.

[Doug Stotland · Rating 5 out of 5]

Exceptionally good read for me. Israel/palestine has been a decades long situation of great interest am stress for me. I’ve thought and read and listened and argued many many hours on the topic.

This was THE most illuminating and even read of all for me. I wish I graduated the read with more hope but at least feel I have a more rounded and deeper appreciation for the nuances and challenges. Also got a better framing of much of the history and culture underlying the conflict.

The authors are brilliant writers. Dry dry material presented in an easy to read and enjoy form. They know so much and impressed me as credible thinkers that anyone intending to understand such a complicated struggle would value. Also credible that anyone interested in enhancing their POV on what’s more/less fair/feasible would value.

Great read. Want to discuss with others who grew up Jewish of my vintage .

[Elisabeth · Rating 5 out of 5]

A passionate, heartbreaking and deeply knowledgeable book by two colleagues who have been deeply involved in failed negotiations over 50 years and through this experience they have great wisdom and sobriety in imaging what could be possible in the context of that failure. Possible but unlikely- still, even to think of possibilities is a way to refrain from indulging in despair. The combination of historical knowledge, insight, sober understanding that there is no way forward without acknowledging the deepest desires and passions of the Palestinian people and of Israeli Jews, of all players in this conflict. And perhaps in some future time the United States will acknowledge our ignorance, arrogance and responsibility in maintaining the conflict. All respect to these brilliant writers. And gratitude.

[Ahmad Alzahrani · Rating 3 out of 5]

"Tomorrow is yesterday: Israel, as it has so many times in years past, searches for alternative ways to manage Palestinian territory. It experimented with direct military rule after the 1967 war; toyed with handpicking West Bank Palestinians to do its bidding under the Village Leagues initiative in the late 1970s; gambled with the Palestinian Authority after Oslo. Tolerating Hamas’s rule in Gaza was another attempt; forcibly displacing Palestinians from their land was a recurrent desire. In most instances, Israel looked in vain for a way to control territory without governing its people, for Palestinians who were sufficiently strong and representative to maintain calm, but also domesticated, subdued, or quiescent enough not to become a threat."

[Ziad Daoud · Rating 4 out of 5]

Why did Yasser Arafat reject Ehud Barak’s offer at Camp ‎David in 2000? ‎

The authors’ account — informed by their participation in ‎the negotiations — points to three reasons:‎

‎1. The offer wasn’t serious. There were no maps, no written ‎proposals, and Barak later wrote that he only made it to ‎expose Arafat not to reach peace.‎

‎2. It wasn’t complete. Nothing on Jerusalem or refugees —‎‎only the West Bank.‎

‎3. It didn’t meet the minimum conditions acceptable to ‎the Palestinians. Their view: we’ve already conceded 80% ‎‎of historical Palestine; nothing less than 100% of the ‎‎remainder would suffice.‎

[Pete · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is not a book that is going to propose a way to peace in Palestine and Israel, but it's a good, detailed history of the past peace processes and what worked (very little) and what did not work. It also gives a cogent analysis on what was missing--addressing the core identity concerns from both the Palestinians and Israelis, reinforcing that borders, politics, money, and land are symptoms of a greater struggle and not the core debate. A worthy read as a history book, though does not plot a path forward (because no viable one exists)

[Anne · Rating 5 out of 5]

A gobsmackingly great book with so much info and background and multiple views from different angles. It helped me understand why Palestinians and Israelis have not been able to relax, be content and enjoy life. It’s a topic I’ve glanced over at occasionally for decades but figured the professionals will get this worked out…. This explains how at many times success was doomed even before various talks began. I found it to be an easy read style, though I am still a little lost on all the players involved. But that’s on me.

[Becky · Rating 5 out of 5]

Decided to read this after an interview with Rob Malley. Excellent discussion of many of the core issues that don't get as much public attention, but impact everyday people in israel and the whole middle east. This is not an attempt to "fix" or offer solutions, in fact the whole thesis is just how complicated and unfixable the situation continues to be, but it gave me a ton of insight. Basically tracks the period from Oslo to Oct 7, saying this period of attemps by US leadership was sort of an aberration that caused more harm than good.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

A depressing and harsh history of the peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians (and the US) over decades by 2 insiders, significant actors in the process. Contemptuous and bitter but also well informed. A diatribe against the "Two State Solution" but only a brief and fantastical section of potential alternatives to it. I think worth reading for the view of the history and the profound challenge of any peaceful progress let alone resolution of the conflict, but not helpful in terms of understanding alternatives or a path forward.

[Charlotte Osborn-bensaada · Rating 5 out of 5]

Why have so many interventions in the Israeli/Palestinian - conflict seems to be the wrong word - tug of war over hearts and minds maybe more apt, failed? Ego of the negotiators, failure to understand the motives of the participants, desire to be seen doing something, even if it would result in nothing. This book does not let any party off as to why so many rounds have failed. It only tangentially addresses the genocide now unfolding in Gaza but in some ways the last two years reminds us that everything that we have presumed, two states etc need to be rethought.

[Oron Stenesh · Rating 4 out of 5]

Picked up after hearing so many guests on Ezra Klein’s podcast recommend this – it truly must be the evident go-to for the liberal elite on Israel/Palestine! I felt this was a somewhat imbalanced (Palestinian and American negotiators/authors, but no Israeli), if largely resonant account of the failures of a proposed two-state solution and the Oslo Accords. Its last chapter doesn’t necessarily lay out a fathomable future, but maybe acceptance of grim reality is a step forward from optimism untethered to reality, and opens a door to meaningful problem solving.