The truth about the truce
The Israelis and Palestinians may have ruined their latest attempt at peace before the truce could even take hold. Olmert ordered a cease-fire in Gaza but, for the time being, operations in the West Bank continue. The leaders of Hamas have rejected Mahmoud Abbas’s plan to arrest any Palestinian who violates the armistice. How do ...
The Israelis and Palestinians may have ruined their latest attempt at peace before the truce could even take hold. Olmert ordered a cease-fire in Gaza but, for the time being, operations in the West Bank continue. The leaders of Hamas have rejected Mahmoud Abbas's plan to arrest any Palestinian who violates the armistice.
How do you have peace in Gaza and war in the West Bank? How do you agree to a truce and not punish everyone who breaks it? And how do you achieve a lasting peace when you can't commit to a true cease-fire?
During the hopeful months before the second Intifada, I saw a roundtable discussion on Israeli television. It had six people representing Palestinians and Israelis—a mayor, a mother, and a general from each side. They all said they were tired of fighting and would do anything to ensure a future without violence. Almost anything, that is. Neither side was willing to budge on its positions regarding the three issues that will require the biggest sacrifices if there is to be a two-state solution: borders, the status of Jerusalem, and the right of return. The problem: They didn't trust each other, not even at a time of relative calm.
The Israelis and Palestinians may have ruined their latest attempt at peace before the truce could even take hold. Olmert ordered a cease-fire in Gaza but, for the time being, operations in the West Bank continue. The leaders of Hamas have rejected Mahmoud Abbas’s plan to arrest any Palestinian who violates the armistice.
How do you have peace in Gaza and war in the West Bank? How do you agree to a truce and not punish everyone who breaks it? And how do you achieve a lasting peace when you can’t commit to a true cease-fire?
During the hopeful months before the second Intifada, I saw a roundtable discussion on Israeli television. It had six people representing Palestinians and Israelis—a mayor, a mother, and a general from each side. They all said they were tired of fighting and would do anything to ensure a future without violence. Almost anything, that is. Neither side was willing to budge on its positions regarding the three issues that will require the biggest sacrifices if there is to be a two-state solution: borders, the status of Jerusalem, and the right of return. The problem: They didn’t trust each other, not even at a time of relative calm.
Getting either side to make the major concessions necessary for successful final status negotiations in the future requires the Israelis and the Palestinians to put all of their energy into cessation of hostilities in the present. Both Palestinians and Israelis need to be convinced that the other side is committed to peace and non-aggression. Their leaders should remember they have a moral obligation—not to a nation in need of a homeland, but to the more than 10 million Palestinians and Israelis who live in fear of further conflict.
More from Foreign Policy

What Putin Got Right
The Russian president got many things wrong about invading Ukraine—but not everything.

Russia Has Already Lost in the Long Run
Even if Moscow holds onto territory, the war has wrecked its future.

China’s Belt and Road to Nowhere
Xi Jinping’s signature foreign policy is a “shadow of its former self.”

The U.S. Overreacted to the Chinese Spy Balloon. That Scares Me.
So unused to being challenged, the United States has become so filled with anxiety over China that sober responses are becoming nearly impossible.