Podcast Summary: Call Me Back – with Dan Senor

Episode: Is Palestinian Statehood Inevitable?
Guests: Amit Segal & Nadav Eyal
Date: November 20, 2025

Episode Overview

In this incisive episode, Dan Senor hosts journalists Amit Segal and Nadav Eyal to unravel the evolving diplomatic and security landscape confronting Israel in the wake of the recent UN Security Council resolution, the Trump administration's Middle East peace plan, and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman's visit to the White House. The discussion probes whether Palestinian statehood is now inevitable, dissecting the nuances of diplomacy, security arrangements, and internal Israeli politics as elections loom. The episode stands out for its frank, often witty exchanges and offers listeners an unvarnished look at the dilemmas gripping Israel’s leadership and public.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Saudi Arabia, the Abraham Accords, and the Two-State Solution

Timestamps: 05:30–14:34

• The conversation kicks off with analysis of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s (MBS) public call for a pathway to a two-state solution as the condition for Saudi normalization with Israel.
• Nadav Eyal underscores uncertainty surrounding the US-Saudi-Israel negotiations, noting that “the Saudis are getting a lot... promises for F35s, nuclear, and non-NATO preferred ally status” (07:41), but that actual normalization is far from imminent.
• Amit Segal outlines the timeline interrupted by October 7th. Pre-October 7, he says, it genuinely seemed normalization was close:

  “Prior to October 7, the due date for this birth of the second phase of Abraham Accords between Israel and Saudi Arabia was October 19th... All of a sudden the Palestinian question went back on the table and the Palestinian path for independence ceased to be merely lip service.” (09:46)

• There’s recognition that the F35 sale is a key bargaining chip, and debate over whether the US or Israel currently holds leverage in these trilateral talks.

2. The UN Security Council Resolution on Gaza

Timestamps: 14:34–30:34

• The discussion turns to the recent UN Security Council resolution authorizing an international stabilization force in Gaza and outlining a transitional authority under US leadership.
• Amit Segal, referencing Israeli intelligence, argues:

  “They [Hamas] are really worried about this UN Resolution. They see this decision as a decision that takes Gaza Strip from the Palestinian people to an international governance ruled by President Trump, who's not their friend.” (17:47)

• Amit highlights the UN’s departure from previous routines:

  “For the first time in 20 years, the UN itself actually separated the West Bank... from Gaza Strip. It actually gave the keys of managing the Gaza Strip to President Trump rather than the United Nations itself.” (17:58)

• Nadav Eyal sharply pushes back, noting it’s historically unprecedented for Israel to accept a foreign military force between itself and territory it captured in 1967:

  “This is something that has never happened... This is a fully-fledged military force, sanctioned by the UN and by that peace council, going to stand between the IDF and Gaza.” (20:40)

• He adds:

  “For the first time... Israel is forced to agree for a military force to be positioned between itself and the Palestinians on an area occupied in 1967.” (19:57)

• Both agree that internal Israeli debate and media discourse about the resolution are deeply politicized—what’s “good” or “bad” for Israel is interpreted through tribal, partisan lenses.

3. The Fate of Palestinian Statehood & Internationalization of Gaza

Timestamps: 24:41–30:34

• The hosts dig into whether the new resolution makes Palestinian statehood more likely.
• Nadav Eyal offers a nuanced view:

  “The reason that Hamas doesn't like this decision...is because of the loss of sovereignty. They see this as neocolonialism... But not because of the weak remark as to Palestinian statehood. This is the reason they actually like the decision—because two years after October 7, Palestinian state is still very much there and that actually gives them hope.” (24:41, 25:53)

• Amit Segal, self-identifying as an opponent of Palestinian statehood, surprisingly minimizes concerns:

  “I have to say that at the risk of being perceived as a far leftist, that I'm not that worried by mentioning Palestinian statehood in the decision.” (27:37)

• The paradox is that longstanding fears on both the Israeli left and right about “internationalization” of the conflict are now occurring, but not in the ways either side expected.

4. Israeli Domestic Politics Heading Into Elections

Timestamps: 30:34–35:06

• Amit Segal and Nadav Eyal trace the political consequences for Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Israeli right.
• Amit notes Netanyahu’s coalition has rebounded in the polls:

  “I would say that he is in his best position in two years. Netanyahu's coalition was elected on the basis of 64 Knesset members out of 120... He scores at 52, which means he returned half of the votes he had lost following the war.” (31:40)

• Nadav expects the coming elections to focus on security:

  “Netanyahu is going to try, as he always does, to set the agenda of threats to Israel in these elections and to maintain that he is the right person to deal with these threats. His campaign is not going to be ‘look at the past’... It's about ‘look to the future threats of Israel.’” (31:47)

• There’s concern about the fractured state of the opposition and the likelihood Netanyahu will try to call early elections while his adversaries are divided.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the UN Resolution’s Impact on Hamas:
  • Amit Segal:

    “They see this decision as a decision that takes Gaza Strip from the Palestinian people to an international governance ruled by President Trump, who's not their friend.” (17:47)

• On the Historical Precedent of International Forces:
  • Nadav Eyal:

    “For the first time... Israel is forced to agree for a military force to be positioned between itself and the Palestinians on an area occupied in 1967.” (19:57)

• On the ‘Tribal and Political’ Nature of Israeli Debate:
  • Nadav Eyal:

    “Everything is so tribal and political. So if you say, look, this is a good decision to Israel, that means you’re buying the narrative of Dermer or Netanyahu. If you’re saying this is the pathway for Palestinian statehood... that’s because you’re against Netanyahu.” (22:27)

• On Netanyahu’s Political Fortunes:
  • Amit Segal:

    “As for defeating Hamas, I would say it's the pause button rather than the stop button. So he can still promise it's going to happen. I would say that he is in his best position in two years.” (30:47)

• On Who Leads Israel’s Opposition:
  • Amit Segal:

    “Let’s imagine that an alien would have landed in Israel and say, take me to your leader to the opposition leader. Who would they take him to?... the opposition doesn't have a clear leader and they are in an urgent need to define the leader. And that's exactly why Netanyahu wants to push forward the election.” (33:37)

Important Timestamps

• 05:30: Analysis of the MBS-White House meeting & F35 negotiations
• 09:46: How Oct. 7 shifted the landscape on normalization and Palestine
• 17:44: Debate on what the UN Resolution actually does—for Gaza, for Israel, for Palestinian statehood
• 19:57: First time a UN-mandated military force will stand between Israel and 1967 territory
• 22:27: Tribalism in Israeli political discourse
• 24:41-25:53: Why Hamas opposes the deal (“loss of sovereignty, not talk of statehood”)
• 27:37: Amit Segal: Not that worried about mention of Palestinian statehood
• 31:40: Netanyahu’s polling comeback and likely campaign strategy
• 33:37: Fragmentation of the Israeli opposition

Overall Tone & Approach

• Direct, Analytical, and Wry: Panelists exchange pointed but respectful disagreements, often with humor and self-awareness.
• Grounded in Political Realities: The conversation is refreshingly candid—neither triumphalist nor fatalistic—and always tied back to what’s actually happening on the ground, in the region, and in Israeli society.
• Nuanced, With Attention to Paradoxes: The show doesn’t force a single narrative; instead, it lets complexities and contradictions breathe, especially around the questions of Palestinian statehood, Israeli security, and international involvement.

This episode provides a crucial snapshot of the existential and political crosswinds buffeting Israel at a moment when regional alliances, US policy, and the very nature of statehood and sovereignty are all up for debate. It’s essential listening for anyone trying to make sense of the shifting Middle East.