Latest news with #Bar-IlanUniversity
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Science
- Yahoo
Gold rings set with garnets look modern but were likely part of a coming-of-age custom 2,300 years ago
Sign up for CNN's Wonder Theory science newsletter. Explore the universe with news on fascinating discoveries, scientific advancements and more. Archaeologists in Jerusalem say they have discovered a roughly 2,300-year-old gold ring with a red gemstone that's remarkably similar to another piece of jewelry found less than a year ago. The two rings, small enough to fit a child, were artifacts unearthed at the City of David site in the Jerusalem Walls National Park. The team analyzing the pieces believes the rings may be connected to coming-of-age ritual by young women before marriage, suggesting the items were buried intentionally. Researchers said the rings, along with bronze earrings, a gold earring resembling a horned animal and a decorated gold bead, likely come from the Early Hellenistic Period in Jerusalem. The Hellenistic era, associated with the spread of Greek culture and influence, lasted from 332 to 141 BC in the city. Remarking on the novelty of finding so much gold jewelry from this period in Jerusalem, Efrat Bocher, an excavation manager from Bar-Ilan University and the Center for the Study of Ancient Jerusalem, said in a May 21 statement that '(t)his displayed wealth is very rare in any archaeological layer, and it attests to the wealth of Jerusalem and the high standard of living of the city's residents during this period.' Recovered from the foundations of a large building, both objects were in a layer of dirt dated to the late third century or early second century BC, according to excavation managers Dr. Yiftah Shalev, an archaeologist at the Israel Antiquities Authority, and Yuval Gadot, head of the Sonia & Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology and professor of archaeology at Tel Aviv University. The discoveries are shedding light on a chapter of Jerusalem's history known primarily from ancient texts, as only a sparse archaeological record existed — until now, Gadot said. The newfound gold ring, set with what appears to be a garnet, was in such excellent condition that excavators first thought it was a modern piece of jewelry dropped by a team member. But Rivka Lengler, one of the first excavators to examine the artifact, recognized its ancient design and called over the rest of the team. 'When I held this ring in my hand, I felt that I could actually touch and connect with the people who lived here thousands of years ago,' Lengler said in a statement. The ring uncovered at the site less than a year ago is also set with a red precious gem and lacks signs of age. 'I was sifting earth through the screen and suddenly saw something glitter,' said Tehiya Gangate, an excavation team member, in a release in 2024. 'I immediately yelled, 'I found a ring, I found a ring!' Within seconds everyone gathered around me, and there was great excitement. This is an emotionally moving find, not the kind you find every day.' Both rings would fit on a woman's pinkie finger at most, but more likely on a girl's finger, the researchers said. Dr. Marion Zindel, an archaeologist with the Israel Antiquities Authority, analyzed the rings and believes artisans made them by hammering thin gold leaf onto metal ring bases. Excavators recovered all the jewelry at the site from beneath the building's floors, suggesting the pieces were placed there on purpose, Zindel said. One hypothesis is that the jewelry was used in 'a well-known Hellenistic period custom in which betrothed women would bury jewelry and other childhood objects in the house foundations as a symbol of the transition from childhood to adulthood,' Zindel said in a statement. Associated with the Early Hellenistic Period, the trend of combining colorful gems with gold was influenced by Indian and Persian fashion and brought to the region by Alexander the Great's eastern conquests, which opened trade channels transporting luxury goods between various regions, according to the researchers. Pieces of jewelry and other finds indicate that the Early Hellenistic Period in Jerusalem was a time associated with wealth and urban planning, but the extent of its residents' prosperity and affluence wasn't previously known, Bocher said. Excavations in the Givati parking lot, located on the western slope of the City of David hill, have been ongoing for years, she said in a YouTube video sharing the discovery. The excavations have been jointly conducted by the Israel Antiquities Authority and Tel Aviv University. The team is eager to gain a better understanding of Jerusalem between the first and ninth centuries BC — a period that has been missing from the archaeological record so far — and the city's long, diverse heritage, Gadot said. The items show that the city's inhabitants were open to adopting Hellenistic cultural trends, lifestyle and architecture — which differs from traditional interpretations from ancient texts about Jerusalem. Experts previously believed the city was culturally isolated, rejecting outside influences, based on mentions in ancient texts, Gadot said. But the jewelry, and the customs associated with its burial, changes that assumption, Gadot added. Researchers now have a new way of understanding how the region was changing at the time. With few structures and artifacts from the era, it was easy to assume that Jerusalem was a small town. But the discoveries so far have uncovered an entire neighborhood including domestic and administrative buildings that extended westward from the City of David hilltop, where a Jewish temple once sat, Gadot said. In addition to analyzing the jewelry, the team will also study animal bones, coins and pottery recovered from the site to learn more about interregional connections, the origin of imported goods and even the culinary habits in Jerusalem at the time. The bones could reveal whether inhabitants practiced Kashrut regulations, or kosher Jewish dietary laws, which govern what animals could be consumed, and how they should be prepared and handled. 'We are only now beginning to explore the story of 4th-2nd century BCE Jerusalem,' Gadot said in an email. 'With the Temple at one end and the Hellenic cultural presence at the other end, we want to understand the position of the people living in Jerusalem.'
NDTV
25-05-2025
- Politics
- NDTV
How Assassination Of This Former PM Derailed Israel-Palestine Peace Process
New Delhi: Thirty years ago, hope stood on a stage in Tel Aviv and was silenced by two gunshots. Yitzhak Rabin, Israel's Prime Minister and the man who dared to dream of peace with the Palestinians, was gunned down by one of his own. To the right-wing Israeli extremist who pulled the trigger, Rabin's vision was betrayal. The bullets ended a life, and also tore through a fragile peace process. Now, three decades later, the conflict Yitzhak Rabin tried to end still burns, unresolved. The Assassination That Shattered A Dream On the evening of November 4, 1995, Yitzhak Rabin stood before a crowd of over 1 lakh Israelis at a peace rally in Tel Aviv's Kings of Israel Square (later renamed Rabin Square). Despite warnings, Rabin refused to wear a bulletproof vest, believing no fellow citizen could pose such a mortal threat. Moments after delivering a hopeful speech urging Israelis to "make peace, not just sing about it," the Prime Minister was shot at close range by Yigal Amir, a 25-year-old Israeli law student and extremist. As reported by The Guardian, Rabin was shot twice and later died in the hospital. This was the first time in Israel's history that a sitting Prime Minister was murdered. And for many, it felt like peace had died with him. Yigal Amir: The Assassin Yigal Amir was a 25-year-old law student at Bar-Ilan University with strong religious and nationalist views. A devout, hardline Zionist, Amir viewed Rabin as a traitor for his willingness to 'concede' land to the Palestinians under the Oslo accords. He believed Rabin's plans endangered the Jewish state. Amir justified his actions by citing a religious concept known as "din rodef," which permits the killing of someone who poses a threat to Jewish lives. He acted alone, without the support or approval of any religious authority. He believed Rabin was a rodef, a pursuer who endangered Jewish lives, and thus, in his own eyes, a legitimate target. Before the assassination, Amir attended multiple public events where Rabin was present, waiting for the perfect moment. On the day of the shooting, he hid his Beretta 84F semi-automatic pistol and ammunition and mingled with the crowd. Then, as the Prime Minister stepped off the stage, the young extremist stepped out from the shadows and fired two shots at point-blank range. Within an hour and a half, Rabin was pronounced dead. Yigal Amir was arrested at the scene and later convicted of murder and conspiracy to commit murder. He was sentenced to life imprisonment plus an additional 14 years. His act, horrifying as it was, achieved exactly what he intended - the end of the peace process Rabin championed. Oslo Accords The Oslo peace process was a series of secret negotiations between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) that began years before the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. This process was the result of decades of conflict and cautious talks. After the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel took control of the West Bank and Gaza, which led to ongoing tensions and conflict. The First Intifada, a Palestinian uprising from 1987 to 1993, showed that military force alone could not solve the conflict. In 1993, secret talks held in Oslo, Norway, led to a historic agreement. On September 13, 1993, Yitzhak Rabin and PLO leader Yasser Arafat shook hands on the White House lawn in front of US President Bill Clinton. They declared an end to "blood and tears," signalling a new hope for peace between Israelis and Palestinians. The Oslo Accords were the first direct agreements between Israel and the PLO. They set the stage for a possible two-state solution and aimed to create a framework for peace after many years of fighting. The first agreement, known as Oslo I, included mutual recognition: the PLO recognised Israel's right to exist in peace and security, while Israel recognised the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people. Oslo I also created the Palestinian Authority, which was given limited self-rule in parts of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Israel agreed to withdraw its military forces from some areas, starting with Jericho and Gaza, and planned to hold democratic elections for the Palestinian Authority. Two years later, in 1995, the Oslo II Accord expanded this agreement. It divided the West Bank into three areas with different levels of Palestinian and Israeli control. Area A was under full Palestinian civil and security control; Area B had Palestinian civil control but joint Israeli-Palestinian security control; and Area C remained under full Israeli control. The Oslo II Accord also called for further Israeli withdrawal, Palestinian elections, and cooperation between Israeli and Palestinian security forces to fight terrorism and maintain order. Despite these advances, the peace process faced many challenges. Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem continued to grow, making it harder to create a united Palestinian state. Violence from extremist groups on both sides, including attacks and bombings, undermined trust. Political divisions deepened. Among the Palestinians, Hamas rejected the Oslo peace process completely, calling it surrender and saying they would never accept any deal that involved giving up land to an Israeli state they believed should not exist. The assassination of Yitzhak Rabin in 1995 was a major blow to the peace process. Then Came Benjamin Netanyahu Back in 1995, Benjamin Netanyahu was the leader of the opposition in Israel. He spoke at some of the most intense anti-Rabin rallies, where the former Prime Minister was harshly criticised and portrayed negatively, even being likened to a Nazi. At many protests, Rabin was compared to Yasser Arafat, with people putting a black-and-white Palestinian scarf (keffiyeh) around his head like Arafat wore. The aftermath of Rabin's death saw Israel's political landscape shift sharply to the right. In the 1996 elections, Netanyahu won a narrow victory over Shimon Peres. This was a move away from Rabin's peace efforts. Fast forward to today, Netanyahu, now Israel's Prime Minister, leads a government waging a harsh military campaign in Gaza following a Hamas attack on October 7, 2023. Almost two years since, the war has killed over 53,000 Palestinians, with many civilians, women and children, among the casualties. The Gaza Health Ministry has also reported more than 109,000 injured. What If Yitzhak Rabin Had Lived? Reports at the time suggested that had Rabin lived, he would most likely have defeated Netanyahu in the 1996 elections, implying that the future of Israeli-Palestinian peace could have been very different. After the famous handshake with Yasser Arafat in 1993, Rabin had said Zionism was no longer about expanding territory but about building a Jewish society based on traditional values combined with Western civilization. Today's dominant settler movement has moved far from Rabin's approach, pushing to settle Gaza again and expanding settlements rapidly in the West Bank, while Palestinian communities face violence and displacement. Rabin had always opposed the settlers' ideology, calling many settlements "political" and a financial burden with no real security benefit. He cut settlement funding in his time, focusing resources on social programmes. But today, under the Benjamin Netanyahu-government, settlers are empowered, and ideas once considered extreme, like expelling Palestinians, are openly discussed. Some settlers argue Rabin betrayed Zionism by making peace with the PLO. They believe the entire land of Israel, including Gaza and the West Bank, should belong to Jews and support settlement expansion even in Gaza. Others, including Rabin's former press officer Uri Dromi, say this extreme view has hijacked Zionism, which Rabin defined as a realistic effort to maintain a Jewish state through negotiation, not exclusion. A 2015 poll showed 76 per cent of Israelis regarded Rabin as "a respectable leader" and 55 per cent said he was missed, but only a third supported the Oslo Accords.
Time of India
19-05-2025
- Health
- Time of India
Drinking more water may lower risk of high blood pressure, heart failure, study finds
Tel Aviv: People with higher sodium levels -- still within the normal range -- are more likely to develop high blood pressure and heart failure , but staying well-hydrated can help prevent these problems, Israeli scientists said on Sunday. A team of researchers from Bar-Ilan University examined 20 years of electronic health records from more than 407,000 healthy adults enrolled in Leumit Healthcare Services , one of Israel's largest health providers. Their findings, published in the peer-reviewed European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, suggest that individuals with sodium levels at the higher end of the normal range face significantly elevated risks for high blood pressure and heart failure. Till now, the 135-146 mmol/L sodium range was broadly accepted as "normal," with little clinical concern unless levels were outside this band. But the Bar-Ilan study found that otherwise healthy individuals with sodium levels between 140-146 mmol/L still face measurably higher risks of developing chronic cardiovascular conditions . For those with levels above 143 mmol/L, the risk jumped to 29 per cent for hypertension and 20 per cent for heart failure. "Our findings point to hydration as a critical and overlooked part of chronic disease prevention ," said Prof. Jonathan Rabinowitz of the Weisfeld School of Social Work at Bar-Ilan University, who led the study. "A simple blood test might flag people who could benefit from basic lifestyle adjustments--like drinking more water, which reduces sodium levels." The researchers tied in hydration by using blood sodium levels as an indirect marker of a person's hydration status. Sodium concentration in the blood rises when the body is underhydrated because there's not enough water to dilute the sodium. Nearly 60 per cent of participants had sodium levels falling within the risk-associated range, underscoring how widespread the issue may be even among healthy populations. The associations held firm even after accounting for variables such as age, sex, body mass index, smoking, potassium levels, and blood pressure. To ensure the data accurately reflected hydration-related risks, individuals with conditions affecting water balance were excluded from the analysis. "Hydration is often overlooked in chronic disease prevention," Rabinowitz added. "This study adds compelling evidence that staying well-hydrated may help reduce the long-term risk of serious conditions like hypertension and heart failure." The US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine recommends a daily fluid intake of approximately 3.7 liters for adult men and 2.7 liters for adult women. However, individual hydration needs can vary based on factors such as age, activity level, climate, and health status.
Al Arabiya
02-05-2025
- Politics
- Al Arabiya
Netanyahu's campaign against Iran's nuclear program is muted with Trump in power
When the US and Iran met for nuclear talks a decade ago, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu railed against an emerging deal from the world's most public stages, including in a fiery speech to Congress seen as a direct challenge to the Obama administration as it was wrapping up the talks. Now, as the sides sit down to discuss a new deal, Netanyahu has fallen silent. Netanyahu sees an Iran with nuclear weapons as an existential threat to Israel, and he is just as wary of any new US agreement with its archenemy that may not meet his standards. Yet he finds himself shackled with Donald Trump in the White House. Netanyahu is unwilling to publicly criticize a president who has shown broad support for Israel, whom he deems to be Israel's greatest friend, and who doesn't take well to criticism. He 'can't do anything that goes against Trump. He's paralyzed,' said Yoel Guzansky, an Iran expert at the Institute for National Security Studies, a Tel Aviv-based think tank. Israel is in a position of power against Iran after a series of strategic achievements over the past 18 months in the wars that have shaken the Middle East. It thrashed Iran's allies in Lebanon, Gaza and Syria, and directly attacked Iran last year, neutralizing some of its key air defenses. Experts say Israel now has a window of opportunity for what could be an effective strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, with possibly less regional blowback. Yet Israel's leader was recently unable to galvanize Trump to prioritize a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities — which would likely hinge on US military assistance to be successful. With the US negotiating with Iran, Israel has little legitimacy to pursue a military option on its own. 'Netanyahu is trapped,' said Eytan Gilboa, an expert on US-Israel relations at Bar-Ilan University near Tel Aviv. 'He was banking on Israel's position relative to Iran to improve under Trump. In practice, it's the opposite.' Netanyahu hoped for alignment with Trump on Iran Netanyahu and his nationalist supporters hoped Trump's return to the White House would be advantageous because of his history of support for Israel. They thought that, under Trump, the US might back a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. But Trump's approach to Iran — as well as on other issues, such as tariffs — has shown the relationship is more complicated, and that Trump's interests don't entirely align with Netanyahu's. Netanyahu has long accused Iran of developing a nuclear weapon and went on a global campaign against the Obama deal. He painted the nuclear program as an existential threat to Israel and the world, and said the agreement was too weak to contain it. Israel remains the Mideast's only nuclear-armed state, an advantage it would like to keep. With Netanyahu's strong encouragement, Trump backed out of the deal struck by Obama. And since returning to the White House, Trump has given Israel free rein in its war against Hamas in Gaza, been soft on the worsening humanitarian crisis in the territory and launched strikes against the Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen, who have attacked Israel since the start of the war. But now that the US has returned to the negotiating table with Iran, Netanyahu would risk jeopardizing his good ties with the president if he were to publicly oppose one of his administration's key foreign policy initiatives. The last time Netanyahu crossed the temperamental Trump was when he congratulated Joe Biden for his election win in 2020. Trump was apparently offended by the perceived disloyalty, and their ties went into deep freeze. Israel is communicating to Washington its priorities for any deal. As part of that, it understood that should Israel choose to carry out a strike on Iran, it would likely be doing so alone — so long as negotiations were underway, according to an Israeli official who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomacy. Netanyahu is hoping for a strict deal on Iran's nuclear program In a speech in Jerusalem this week, Netanyahu said he had discussed his terms for a deal with Trump. He explained that it would need to dismantle all the infrastructure of Iran's nuclear program and that it should work to prevent Iran from developing ballistic missiles capable of delivering a bomb. 'I said to President Trump that I hope that this is what the negotiators will do. We're in close contact with the United States. But I said one way or the other – Iran will not have nuclear weapons,' he said. Netanyahu has said he would favor a strict diplomatic agreement similar to Libya's deal in 2003 to destroy its nuclear facilities and allow inspectors unfettered access. However, it is not clear if Trump will set such strict conditions — and Iran has rejected giving up its right to enrich. The Trump-led talks with Iran began earlier this month and have advanced to expert discussions over how to rein in Iran's nuclear program and prevent it from being able to obtain atomic weapons, should it choose to pursue them. Iran says its program is for peaceful purposes, though some officials increasingly threaten to pursue the bomb. While Trump has said a military option remains on the table, and has moved military assets to the region, he says he prefers a diplomatic solution. Planned talks between Iran and the United States this weekend were postponed on Thursday. Netanyahu will also struggle to criticize a deal once one is clinched Since Trump scrapped the Obama-era agreement in 2018, Iran has ramped up its nuclear enrichment and increased its uranium stockpile. Netanyahu's 2015 speech to Congress against Obama's deal — at the invitation of Republicans — was made without consulting the White House. Obama did not attend. That was just one of many instances in which Netanyahu was seen as cozying up to Republicans, driving a wedge in what has traditionally been bipartisan support for Israel. That, coupled with Netanyahu's strained relationship with the Biden administration over Israel's conduct in Gaza, has meant that Netanyahu can't rely on Democratic allies to take up his cause. Still, Netanyahu would struggle to find any Republicans willing to publicly confront the president on this issue. And he himself will struggle to criticize a deal if one is clinched; instead, he might send surrogates like his far-right allies to do so, said Gilboa of Bar-Ilan University. But until then, Gilboa said, Netanyahu's best hope is that the talks fail. 'That, for him, will be the best-case scenario.'
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
02-05-2025
- Politics
- Business Standard
Netanyahu's criticism of Iran's nuclear programme muted with Trump in power
When the US and Iran met for nuclear talks a decade ago, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu railed against an emerging deal from the world's most public stages, including in a fiery speech to Congress seen as a direct challenge to the Obama administration as it was wrapping up the talks. Now, as the sides sit down to discuss a new deal, Netanyahu has fallen silent. Netanyahu sees an Iran with nuclear weapons as an existential threat to Israel, and he is just as wary of any new US agreement with its archenemy that may not meet his standards. Yet he finds himself shackled with Donald Trump in the White House. Netanyahu is unwilling to publicly criticise a president who has shown broad support for Israel, whom he deems to be Israel's greatest friend, and who doesn't take well to criticism. He can't do anything that goes against Trump. He's paralysed, said Yoel Guzansky, an Iran expert at the Institute for National Security Studies, a Tel Aviv-based think tank. Israel is in a position of power against Iran after a series of strategic achievements over the past 18 months in the wars that have shaken the Middle East. It thrashed Iran's allies in Lebanon, Gaza and Syria, and directly attacked Iran last year, neutralizing some of its key air defences. Experts say Israel now has a window of opportunity for what could be an effective strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, with possibly less regional blowback. Yet Israel's leader was recently unable to galvanize Trump to prioritise a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities which would likely hinge on US military assistance to be successful. With the US negotiating with Iran, Israel has little legitimacy to pursue a military option on its own. Netanyahu is trapped, said Eytan Gilboa, an expert on US-Israel relations at Bar-Ilan University near Tel Aviv. He was banking on Israel's position relative to Iran to improve under Trump. In practice, it's the opposite. Netanyahu hoped for alignment with Trump on Iran Netanyahu and his nationalist supporters hoped Trump's return to the White House would be advantageous because of his history of support for Israel. They thought that, under Trump, the US might back a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. But Trump's approach to Iran as well as on other issues, such as tariffs has shown the relationship is more complicated, and that Trump's interests don't entirely align with Netanyahu's. Netanyahu has long accused Iran of developing a nuclear weapon and went on a global campaign against the Obama deal. He painted the nuclear program as an existential threat to Israel and the world, and said the agreement was too weak to contain it. Israel remains the Mideast's only nuclear-armed state, an advantage it would like to keep. With Netanyahu's strong encouragement, Trump backed out of the deal struck by Obama. And since returning to the White House, Trump has given Israel free rein in its war against Hamas in Gaza, been soft on the worsening humanitarian crisis in the territory and launched strikes against the Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen, who have attacked Israel since the start of the war. But now that the US has returned to the negotiating table with Iran, Netanyahu would risk jeopardising his good ties with the president if he were to publicly oppose one of his administration's key foreign policy initiatives. The last time Netanyahu crossed the temperamental Trump was when he congratulated Joe Biden for his election win in 2020. Trump was apparently offended by the perceived disloyalty, and their ties went into deep freeze. Israel is communicating to Washington its priorities for any deal. As part of that, it understood that should Israel choose to carry out a strike on Iran, it would likely be doing so alone so long as negotiations were underway, according to an Israeli official who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomacy. Netanyahu is hoping for a strict deal on Iran's nuclear programme In a speech in Jerusalem this week, Netanyahu said he had discussed his terms for a deal with Trump. He explained that it would need to dismantle all the infrastructure of Iran's nuclear programme and that it should work to prevent Iran from developing ballistic missiles capable of delivering a bomb. "I said to President Trump that I hope that this is what the negotiators will do. We're in close contact with the United States. But I said one way or the other Iran will not have nuclear weapons, he said. Netanyahu has said he would favour a strict diplomatic agreement similar to Libya's deal in 2003 to destroy its nuclear facilities and allow inspectors unfettered access. However, it is not clear if Trump will set such strict conditions and Iran has rejected giving up its right to enrich. The Trump-led talks with Iran began earlier this month and have advanced to expert discussions over how to rein in Iran's nuclear programme and prevent it from being able to obtain atomic weapons, should it choose to pursue them. Iran says its program is for peaceful purposes, though some officials increasingly threaten to pursue the bomb. While Trump has said a military option remains on the table, and has moved military assets to the region, he says he prefers a diplomatic solution. Planned talks between Iran and the United States this weekend were postponed on Thursday. Netanyahu will also struggle to criticise a deal once one is clinched Since Trump scrapped the Obama-era agreement in 2018, Iran has ramped up its nuclear enrichment and increased its uranium stockpile. Netanyahu's 2015 speech to Congress against Obama's deal at the invitation of Republicans was made without consulting the White House. Obama did not attend. That was just one of many instances in which Netanyahu was seen as cozying up to Republicans, driving a wedge in what has traditionally been bipartisan support for Israel. That, coupled with Netanyahu's strained relationship with the Biden administration over Israel's conduct in Gaza, has meant that Netanyahu can't rely on Democratic allies to take up his cause. Still, Netanyahu would struggle to find any Republicans willing to publicly confront the president on this issue. And he himself will struggle to criticize a deal if one is clinched; instead, he might send surrogates like his far-right allies to do so, said Gilboa of Bar-Ilan University. But until then, Gilboa said, Netanyahu's best hope is that the talks fail. That, for him, will be the best case scenario.
