Resolving the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Perspectives on the ...

But even if these alternatives could be put in place, the second basic problem, the substantive one, remains. There is broad backing for a two-state solution, but the real issue is the details of that solution. As we know well, the devil is in the details. Borders and settlements may be easy compared to Jerusalem and refugees, issues that are not always as clear. The obvious response to this issue is to work it out in negotiations, but the truth of the matter is that close to twenty years of negotiations have not yielded any understanding.

There are thus two very clear, variant responses to these substantive dilemmas. The first, which, I believed, was being worked on during the waning days of the Olmert administration is a “shelf” agreement. That means making an agreement with all the details, without letting anyone know about it because there are too many obstacles preventing its implementation. It essentially takes something like the Geneva Initiative, but it is not published until it is politically opportune, when it is brought into the open for agreement. There is a lot of talk that recent discussions between Israel and the Palestinians focused on formulating just such a shelf agreement.

The other obvious solution relates to staggering the handling of the substantive issues, because the hard issues cannot be ignored, as has happened in previous discussions. If there truly were so much agreement on a two-state solution, there would be agreement on the details as well, but the fact that there is not spells a problem. The other obvious solution then, is to deal with the easier issues first. For example, reaching an agreement initially on borders might make it easier to deal with the settlement issue, and then with Jerusalem, and then with the refugees. It is important to understand that the obvious inclination is to concentrate first on the question of borders, and then direct attention to the other items. These are the more obvious approaches to grappling with the substantive issues.

Is there an outside-of-the-box way to deal with the substantive challenges? I suggest there is. I think that one way to deal with the framing of substantive issues is to put them in the context of a very detailed picture of the nature of the future relations between two independent