Without reading Einat Wilf's and Ari Schwartz's War of Return or watching Einat Wilf's videos unpacking the essence of the conflict, you have no idea what you're looking at. Its essence: when faced with a choice between statehood for both peoples and statehood for neither, the Palestinians choose the latter, every time without fail (1937, 1945, 1947, 1967, 1979, 2000-01, 2008, 2014) Ernest Bevin is still as right as he was in 1947: the highest point of principle for the Jews is to have a state. The highest point of principle for the Arabs is that the Jews not have a state. Oslo was just Muslim taqqiya in the service of dhimmitude restoration.

Only this resolution is possible: the Palestinians renounce return as Wilf has phrased it:

"When I worked with Shimon Peres during the 90s there was this reigning idea that to make peace we need uh constructive ambiguity. Let's just fudge the issues sign an agreement, trust will build it was the commanding idea. I've become a a proponent of constructive specificity. Let's be very very clear so to know that the path to pie is open what I need to hear from a Palestinian is this:

"The Jewish people as a people have the equal right to self-determination in this land which is also their Homeland I know that this means that we can build a state of Palestine next to the Jewish state of Israel and not instead of it. I understand that this means that living in Gaza and the West Bank I am not a refugee from Palestine this means I do not possess a right of return into the sovereign state of Israel I only want to build a prosperous state of Palestine in Gaza and the West Bank and nowhere else."

And I always tell them go bring me a Palestinian and no one ever comes back. and just to be clear it's not that I'm sitting and saying oh look at me you know no one ever comes back as I said a long-term peace activist I'm looking for these voices."