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

roadblocks are put into place, and restrictions abound, which themselves evoke violence that results in the cessation of diplomatic initiatives.

Thus, we are in a situation where in a sense, at the most immediate level, the escalation of violence, whose eradication is one of the primary reasons for negotiations, is actually preventing real negotiations. I do not believe that there have been any experts in the area of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process who have not highlighted this point in one form or another, so there is generally broad agreement on how critical it is to break this counterproductive, vicious cycle.

The question then becomes: What is an appropriate response to this sort of dilemma? The obvious, frequently mentioned answer is an agreed ceasefire. To put it in the most categorical terms, such an agreed halt in hostilities means direct or indirect discussions with Hamas on a ceasefire (and I emphasize on a ceasefire). We need to be wary of a long-term moratorium on violence with Hamas, which in itself is an exercise in conflict management that will prevent any kind of resolution. For a ceasefire, negotiations of some sort with Hamas are needed, more likely indirect negotiations, but direct ones if needed. This is the obvious, instinctive response to the challenge of the detrimental effects of violence on the possibility of moving toward a just two-state solution.

There may be an outside-of-the-box addition that is also intriguing. No ceasefire should be used as an excuse to engage in additional steps—primarily by Israel, but not only by Israel—that will predetermine the outcome of negotiations. In other words, a ceasefire must be linked (and this is outside-of-the-box thinking) to a monitored commitment to not take any steps that will adversely affect further talks. To put it plainly, this means that there will no settlement expansion, no further construction in East Jerusalem, and no additional checkpoints; it also means the opening and the easing of restrictions as a direct by-product of the ceasefire. The ceasefire per se is important, but the outside-of-the-box linkage is that there also has to be an underlying assumption: ceasefires are worthwhilebecause they bring good things.

One more point should be added in this regard: Such incentives will not be achieved without the effective monitoring from external parties.