When comparing the works of Natasha Gill and Hillel Cohen, it’s clear that there are similarities between them in regards to the overall messages and conclusions they put forward. However a closer examination of both their works shows fundamental differences in their approaches. But before these differences can be demonstrated, the works’ similarities must be demonstrated.
The conclusions of Gill and Cohen are very similar. On the one hand, Gill argues that Israelis often look at the Palestinian viewpoint as one motivated by anti-Semitism and irrationality. As a result, there are little to no further attempts made at gaining an understanding of the Palestinian perspective. This, Gill concludes, makes agreement between the two sides difficult because “from the perspective of the Arabs compromise never appeared to be what it was for the Zionists then, or in the form it has been portrayed” (pg 10). Because Israelis don’t understand the Arab perspective, the offers they’ve made as compromises, did not qualify as such from an Arab perspective. The Israeli terms in negotiations, such as recognition of Israel as the Jewish state, amounted to a
…show more content…
Gill does this when she blames Israelis’ misconceptions and lack of understanding of the Palestinian view for the peace negotiations’ failures. Cohen on the other hand also places blame on one side over the other when he writes that “The challenge is formidable because the Palestinians' avoidance to address their own atrocities” (pg 6). But this is also a point where the two sides begin to diverge. It’s clear that Gill thinks the responsibility for increased understanding, for change lies on the shoulders of Israel. Cohen, on the other hand, believes the responsibility to change lies on the Palestinian side. Yet this is not the only difference between the two authors, nor is it the most