Border imperatives

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has announced (again) that Israel is about to begin building a barrier along its 266-kilometer Sinai border with Egypt. The fence is expected to cost some NIS 1.35 billion and will include a host of hi-tech elements, including radar.

If it is for real this time, this is a very positive development which will curtail the worrying rise in refugees and asylum-seekers infiltrating the border. In recent years Israeli cities - especially Eilat and Arad - have been inundated with waves of arrivals from Eritrea, Sudan, the Ivory Coast, Nigeria, Ethiopia, and Ghana. Many make their way to Israel via Egypt not because they suffer persecution, but simply because they are looking for a better life for themselves.

In July 2009, there were a total of 17,736 refugees and 4,144 asylum seekers in Israel - over 17,000 just from Eritrea and Sudan. If in 1998 only 106 refugees and asylum-seekers entered, the number jumped to 7,681 in 2008. This presents a demographic threat to a country struggling to maintain a significant Jewish majority while providing equal rights to a large Arab minority, making up some 20% of the population, which identifies religiously and culturally with an overwhelming Arab majority that surrounds Israel.

The unresolved Palestinian refugee issue is another threat to a Jewish majority, as is the presence of about 200,000 foreign workers. Furthermore, Israel faces the challenge of absorbing 8,000 Ethiopian Falash Mura, in addition to immigrants from many other countries.



BUT IN addition to building a barrier, which is likely to take well over a year to complete, it is imperative that our political leaders revamp Israeli policy vis-a-vis refugees and asylum-seekers. As a recent study by the Metzilah Center entitled "Managing Global Migration" noted, Israel is probably the only western democracy without legislation governing their treatment.

Israel, a country created in the wake of the Holocaust to be a national homeland for the Jewish people after nearly two millennia of exile, has a unique moral responsibility to refugees and asylum-seekers. Government leadership must take immediate steps to adopt a transparent, uniform policy that ensures fair and humane treatment.

In light of the extraordinary challenges it has faced since its founding, Israel's record is pretty good in this area. Already in 1954, Israel signed the 1951 International Convention on the Status of Refugees. In addition, Israel upholds the principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits returning refugees to their country of origin where they might suffer persecution on the basis of race, ethnicity, nationality or political activities. And in July 2009 Israel took over responsibility for determining the status of asylum-seekers and refugees from the UN's High Commissioner for Refugees.

However, while it is a signatory to the Convention on the Status of Refugees, Israel has yet to put in place the necessary legal infrastructure for implementing the convention's principles. As a result, Israel's refugee and asylum-seeker policy lacks any structure. Processing of requests is done in an ad-hoc way by bodies such as the IDF which are not trained for the job.

Nor has Israel set up arbitration bodies with expertise in immigration law. As long as the numbers of refugees and asylum-seekers remained small, these lacunae were not critical. But the status quo has become unbearable. Refugees and asylum-seekers are forced to wait on average 33 months to have their status determined. In the meantime, they are often held in limbo in bad conditions in compounds such as the Saharonim camp on the Egyptian border.



AMID THE concerns over demographic threats to the Jewish majority, Israel's political leadership must take steps to expedite the processing of requests for asylum. Israel should not be expected to absorb the thousands every year who manage to infiltrate its borders.

The new border fence is a long-overdue means of grappling with that problem. At the same time, those who are here, if waiting to be transferred to a third country or returned to their country of origin when safe, should be provided with adequate living conditions.

For nearly 2,000 years the Jewish people were guests, refugees or asylum-seekers in other peoples' countries. They often benefited from their hosts, but were also expelled, discriminated against and persecuted. Now with a sovereign state of its own, the Jewish people has the imperative both to ensure that a strong Jewish majority is maintained in the sovereign Jewish state, and to serve as a moral example of how developed countries should treat refugees and asylum-seekers.

UNESCO and the cradle of Jewish history

UNESCO, the United Nations body in charge of preserving historical sites, went too far this time. There is a lot of chutzpah in this post-modernist era of "deconstruction" and "revision." Warmly cherished religious faiths and customs are reduced to "false consciousness." Nations with their own unique ethnicity and proud traditions become "imagined communities." Foundational histories are reduced to nothing more than subjective "narratives."

But even in this radically relativistic intellectual atmosphere, the latest UNESCO decision stands out. For this was a particularly blatant attempt to erase Jewish ties to the land of Israel.

In its biannual session which ended last week, UNESCO adopted proposals initiated by Arab member states to dub two Jewish historical sites "Palestinian." In a 44-1 vote, with 12 abstentions, the UNESCO board declared the "Haram al-Ibrahm/the Cave of the Patriarchs and Bilal bin Rabah Mosque/Rachel's Tomb" to be "an integral part of the occupied Palestinian territories" and asserted "that any unilateral action by the Israeli authorities is to be considered a violation of international law."

The move is seen in some quarters as a response to Israel's decision in February to include the Cave of the Patriarchs and Rachel's Tomb on a list of national heritage sites that would receive additional funding for refurbishing and for the development of educational tours.

While February's decision was described by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu as a way of "reconnecting" Israelis to their history, the UNESCO decision was denounced by the prime minister as an "absurd" attempt to "detach the people of Israel from its heritage."

He asked: "If the places where the fathers and mothers of the Jewish nation are buried, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Sarah, Leah and Rachel, some 4,000 years ago, are not part of the Jewish heritage then what is?"

Particularly absurd was the decision regarding Rachel's Tomb. As scholars such as Nadav Shragai and Prof. Yehoshua Porath have pointed out, it was only in 2000 that the Palestinians "discovered" its historical importance.

On Yom Kippur of that year, as the second intifada was being launched, Al-Hayat al-Jadida, a Palestinian daily, published an article that blatantly departed from Muslim tradition, which corresponds with Jewish tradition, to claim that "the tomb is false and was originally a Muslim mosque." Until then, all official Palestinian Authority references to the site had recognized it as Rachel's Tomb. (A similar tactic was used after the 1929 Arab riots, to transform the Western Wall into the al-Buraq wall, supposedly the place where Muhammed's winged horse al-Buraq was tied after his night-flight from Mecca.)



ZIONISM IS particularly susceptible to these types of attacks. As a movement, Zionists simultaneously rebelled against tradition - particularly the Jewish religion - and exile, while incorporating concepts from Judaism that emphasized Jews' ties to the land of Israel.

Zionism strove for normalization of the Jewish people as "a nation among the nations." But it also co-opted the idea of "chosenness" by aspiring to create a model nation - hevrat mofet. Bitter disputes in contemporary Israel over settlements and the proper balance between Israel's Jewish and democratic dimensions have their roots in this "split" Jewish identity.

Nonetheless, whether one is for or against Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria, or for or against emphasizing Israel's "Jewishness" at the expense of its "democratic" nature, it is an undeniable fact that the geographical area referred to as the West Bank and that includes Hebron and Bethlehem was the cradle of Jewish history. No amount of historical revisionism or UNESCO declarations will erase this fact.

Nor is there a doubt that Israel has done a better job at maintaining equitable access to religious sites for all faiths. In contrast, Jordan denied Israel the "free access to the Holy Places [including the Kotel] and cultural institutions and use of the cemetery on the Mount of Olives" stipulated in the April 1949 Armistice.

The Palestinian Authority's track record is no better. If not for the Israeli security presence, Rachel's Tomb, the Cave of the Patriarchs, and Joseph's Tomb would be off limits to Jews today. Whatever future territorial agreements are reached with the Palestinians, it would be an intolerable and untenable injustice if Jews were prevented from visiting sites with such profound historical, cultural and religious import.

Truth over 'narrative'

The Education Ministry has banned Learning Each Other's Historical Narrative, a high school history textbook designed for both Israelis and Palestinians which aspires to present both peoples' "narratives."

Though we normally oppose book banning and back the free exchange of ideas, including openness to alternative opinions and views, we nonetheless support the Education Ministry's decision. Learning Each Other's Historical Narrative is based on the dangerous post-modernist premise employed by "new historians" and post-Zionists that there are no such things as objective historical truths. This is not the educational message we should be giving to our high school students.

The textbook is the brainchild of late psychologist Dan Bar-On of Ben-Gurion University, who developed therapy that involved meetings between Holocaust victims and children of Nazi criminals, and Sami Adwan, an American-educated Palestinian historian from Bethlehem University who had spent time in an Israeli prison as a Fatah terror suspect before embracing the idea of peace through dialogue.

The two founded the Peace Research Institute in the Middle East and began working on the project nearly a decade ago with six Palestinian and six Israeli history teachers.

Starting with Zionism's inception and ending with the contemporary era, the textbook presents the Israeli narrative on the left side of each page while the identical event is presented from a Palestinian perspective on the right side. In the middle a blank space is left for students' own thoughts. Schools in Jericho and Ramallah have reportedly agreed to use the textbook.

The Sha'ar Hanegev High School began using the textbook this year with a select group of students who opted for an enriched history course. However, the chairman of the Pedagogical Secretariat in the Education Ministry, Zvi Zameret, intervened and barred the school from using it.

Students at Sha'ar Hanegev protested the move. "It is difficult for us to understand the Education Ministry's terrible fear of the textbook, which simply presents positions - Israeli and Palestinian - regarding the conflict," one student said.

However, Learning Each Other's Historical Narrative does not simply present different, equally legitimate positions. The textbook presents falsehood as fact.

For instance, in the "Palestinian narrative," Zionism is defined as "an imperialist political movement" and Israel is blamed for intentionally expelling Palestinians during the 1948 War of Independence.

Zionists may have underestimated the extent of Arab opposition to the creation of a Jewish homeland, but they did not come to Israel with the objective of subjugating and exploiting the Palestinian people. And there never was a concerted Zionist effort to expel Palestinians during the War of Independence. In fact, as historians Benny Morris and Efraim Karsh have shown through painstaking research, the only party systematically interested in "transfer" or "expulsion" in this period was the Arabs.

Teaching such claims as a legitimate "narrative" might tempt us to present blood libels or Holocaust denial as just another "narrative."



AS NEW information becomes available, and new themes and nuances become plain, Israel has a vital imperative to continually re-examine its own history and teach it honestly to its children. A critical reading of the "Palestinian narrative" is also important - in good part because it helps us to understand the extent the Palestinian distortion of reality and thus contextualize Palestinians' sometimes violent refusal to recognize the Jewish people's right to self-determination alongside a Palestinian state, as advocated and provided for by the UN's November 29, 1947 partition plan.

But we must be careful to ensure that our high school students do not confuse fiction with fact, distortion with reality. Learning Each Other's Historical Narrative blurs the line between the two.

Truths and absolute objectivity are commodities in short supply in this fraught context. But the complexities of the issues must not negate the goal.

The epitome of historical scholarship is not "the presentation of a variety of views to show there is no single historical truth," as Rachel Zamir, a history teacher who used Learning Each Other's Historical Narrative at Rogozin High School in Tel Aviv, put it.

Rather, the objective of history should be the striving for the attainment of historical truth through sincere scholarship and intellectual honesty. That is the message we should be giving our youngsters.

The pope must speak up

In the name of radical Islamic-inspired nationalism, Mideast Christians of all denominations, including Catholics, have faced devastating persecution for their religious convictions. From the Gaza Strip and Egypt to Iraq to Turkey, Christians have been murdered, had their churches burned to the ground and their holy books destroyed, and have been demoted to second-class citizens exposed to libels and exploitation by Muslim neighbors.

Ostensibly with the purpose of addressing these injustices and stemming the tide of a dwindling Christian population in the Mideast, Pope Benedict XVI convened a special Vatican Synod in Rome, composed of about 200 bishops mostly from Muslim countries. Yet these bishops hijacked the synod and issued a statement Saturday that all but ignored the plight of Catholics living in Muslim lands while singling out Israel's "occupation" for special castigation.

One of the synod's leaders, Greek Melkite Archbishop Cyril Salim Bustros, even reiterated anti-Semitic theological positions that contradicted official Catholic positions as stated in Nostra Aetate, a groundbreaking interfaith document drafted in October 1965 during the Second Vatican Council that radically revamped the Church's previous negative views of the Jewish people.

Rabbi David Rosen, the American Jewish Committee's International Director of Interreligious Affairs, has now called on the Vatican to issue a clear repudiation of Bustros's "outrageous and regressive comments." We firmly join him in that call.



IT IS an undeniable fact that the bulk of Christian persecution in the Mideast is perpetrated in the name of radical Islam.

Open Doors, an organization that tracks attacks on Christians, regularly compiles a global "persecution index." North Korea has topped the list for many years.

However, of the top 10 countries on the list, eight are Islamic and three - Iran, Saudi Arabia and Yemen - are in the Middle East. Egypt and Iraq are also listed in the top 20. The "Palestinian Territories" is ranked 47, cited primarily as a conflict zone and also in part due to the strife suffered by all Gazans, Christians included, as a result of the destruction caused by Operation Cast Lead.

Open Doors takes pains to note, however, that even before the offensive, which was directed at Hamas terrorists, not Christians, "Many [Christian] believers had already left, pressured by the growing influence of radical Islam..."



SO, IF radical Islam is the principal persecutor of Christians in the Mideast, why was Israel singled out? Apparently, by bashing Israel, Arab Catholic bishops as a persecuted minority in the Mideast are attempting to go out of their way to prove their loyalty to their Muslim brethren.

This is a common socio-psychological phenomenon among Jews in response to anti-Semitism. Some British Jews, for instance, have been known to become more British than the Brits. Some of the most adamant communist ideologues in anti-Semitic Bolshevik Russia were Jews.

So, too, Arab Christians have attempted to emphasize their ethnic and cultural loyalties above their religious affiliation, not only out of strongly heartfelt emotional ties to the Arab people, but also as a way of neutralizing religious tensions.

When secular Pan-Arabism was still in vogue, this tactic was much easier to pull off. Christians such as Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine founder George Habash, who was of Greek Orthodox background, could join forces with Muslim terrorists under the banner of Palestinian nationalism.

However, with the rise of Wahhabism, the Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Qaida, radical Shi'ism and other extremist Islamic movements, Arab Christians have had an increasingly harder time integrating into their respective societies. In a push to garner favor among Muslim extremists, the temptation among the bishops to revert to pre-Nostra Aetate anti-Semitic Catholic theology is evidently irresistible.

We can muster some understanding, if not empathy, for Mideast bishops' disingenuous and ultimately self-defeating behavior, which will only perpetuate the persecution of Christians by kowtowing to Muslim extremism. We cannot, however, excuse the Vatican for allowing itself to be hijacked.

Bishops from this region have distorted both church teachings and the facts to sully Israel, while the Vatican has remained silent, in the process turning a blind eye to Christian suffering.

Pope Benedict XVI still has a chance to distance himself from the synod's declarations and make it clear that Bustros's comments deviate from Church teaching. That is the right and necessary thing for the pope to do - not just for Jewish-Catholic relations, but also for the sake of the Middle East's persecuted Christian minority.

Shameful 'honor' killings

Police suspect that "honor" is the motive behind a spate of killings in Lod that have left two men and two women dead.

None of the victims had a criminal record; police believe that the four might have been two couples whose relationships shamed their respective families.

Public Security Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch has said that "preventing murders, especially 'family honor killings,' will not be achieved through increased enforcement, but through a change in culture, education, legal deterrence... Police cannot replace health workers, courts, social workers, teachers and parents."

Indeed. We might add, following the lead of Kwameh Anthony Appiah, a philosopher from Princeton University, that some residents of Lod evidently need to revamp conceptions of what constitutes honor and disgrace. As Appiah pointed out in his recently released book The Honor Code: How Moral Revolutions Happen, the desire to earn the respect of those we care about motivates us more than any rational argument or religious belief. The best way to prevent men from killing their wives and daughters, and brothers from killing their sisters, is by convincing these murderers and their collaborators and supporters that such acts are despicable and a source of shame. Anything but honor.

The Lod slayings have targeted men as well as women (which might be one of the reasons that police are still not completely sure that they were "honor killings"). But in most such cases, woman alone are punished for besmirching the honor of the family. It is, after all, much easier to bully women.

Misogynistic murders have taken place in Southern Italy, Eastern Europe, and among Hindu and Sikh communities in India. But the infamous practice apparently has its source in pre-Islamic Beduin tribes and is a blight particularly for Muslim countries influenced by this culture. This is true despite the fact that it is utterly forbidden by Shari'a, which underlines how concepts of honor trump religious belief.



IN PAKISTAN, even the Western-educated elites share this warped concept of honor, which shows that education alone is not enough to eradicate it. Until just a few years ago, about 1,000 reported cases were reported there every year. Thankfully, opposition to honor killings in Pakistan has grown in recent years, principally because the practice is beginning to be seen shameful; it hurts Pakistan's standing in the world.

Closer to home, in Jordan and Egypt, dozens of cases are reported each year, according to a November 2006 report by Human Rights Watch. In both countries, the practice is illegal. However, culprits, if punished at all, end up serving no more than six months in prison.

"Extenuating" circumstances include perpetrating the murder when in a state of rage, or in response to even a baseless suspicion of an illicit sexual act. Jordan's and Egypt's penal codes constitute law in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, respectively, and reflect identical societal norms. Palestinian women who report abuse to the Palestinian Authority confront a system that prioritizes family reputations over females' well-being and lives. PA police and clan leaders "resolve" these cases by letting victims suffer and criminals free.

Is this mindset true to the state that Palestinians dream one day of creating? What is the sense in establishing yet another blinkered Muslim state that permits its own mothers and daughters to live in fear?



ARAB ISRAELIS, meanwhile, also continue to maintain a warped conception of honor, as the Lod slayings and numerous other honor killings make clear. Fear of punishment by Israeli law has not eradicated the practice. Perhaps police are partially to blame for tending to view the phenomenon as an internal Arab matter that does not require police intervention.

Only a radical moral relativist can see honor killings as a legitimate cultural, expression. This strain of moral relativism in Europe has made it easier for Turks, Afghans, Moroccans and other immigrant groups to import honor killings, sparking a debate over what some call the transformation of Europe into "Eurabia." Just this week, Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel declared that multiculturalism had "utterly failed."

But as Appiah has pointed out, punishment, rational arguments, better police enforcement and education alone will not stop honor killings.

Promoters of this despicable practice must be defamed, and even ridiculed if need be, by peers and others whose respect they seek, until they come to the realization that by performing honor killings they are bringing upon themselves and upon others associated with them nothing but shame.

No contradiction between 'Jewish' and 'democratic'

Last week's cabinet decision to require non-Jews seeking Israeli citizenship via naturalization to take an oath of loyalty to a "Jewish and democratic" state has aroused a great deal of controversy. In response to some constructive criticism, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has now called to amend the law so that those eligible for Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return would also have to take the oath.

Netanyahu's move was designed in part to reassure those ineligible for Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return, particularly Arabs, that they will not be expected to take on any extraordinary burdens of conscience.

In truth, it is unclear what precisely is so burdensome about acknowledging a principle already anchored in the Balfour Declaration, the UN partition plan, Israel's Declaration of Independence, as well as the 1992 Basic Law: Human Freedom and Dignity and Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation. Nevertheless, it is only fair that all who request Israeli citizenship, whether eligible under the Law of Return or not, be obligated to undergo an identical acceptance process.

Some critics, such as MK Ahmed Tibi (United Arab List - Ta'al), have said that demanding an oath of loyalty to a Jewish and democratic state is not only burdensome but is also downright racist. Thousands gathered on Saturday in Tel Aviv with a similar sentiment, and chanted "no to fascism, yes to democracy."

Adopting such an extreme position prevents constructive dialogue.



THERE IS no inherent contradiction between the terms "Jewish" and "democratic." Israel's "Jewishness" is by virtue of the fact that the majority of people living here are Jews who share a common religion, culture, history and national identity, including nearly two millennia of Jewish yearning to return to their land. They also share the lesson of the Holocaust, the tragic consequence, in part, of Jews' lack of sovereignty.

Like other peoples, including the Palestinians, Jews have the right to self-determination in their own sovereign state, where they can formulate their own policies, produce their own unique culture and protect themselves.

But Israel is also democratic in the sense that minorities' rights, such as freedom of speech and press, freedom of religion and even the right to political representation in the Knesset, are carefully protected. Admittedly, more must be done to provide Arab Israelis with equal opportunities and access to state resources. Doing so would strengthen, not detract from, Israel's Jewish character. Pursuing peaceful relations with non-Jews is a central Jewish value.



MORE PERTINENT criticism of the loyalty oath bill has focused on its timing and the way it has been presented. The proposal comes against the backdrop of legislation such as the Nakba Law, which denies state funding to organizations that mark Israel's Independence Day as a nakba (catastrophe) and a failed bill by Yisrael Beitenu that would have forced every citizen of Israel to take an oath of loyalty and perform military or national service.

Though it is an amendment to immigration policy, the loyalty oath is perceived by many in the Arab Israeli population as an attempt, as Hebrew University law professor Ruth Gavison put it, "to exclude all Arabs from symbolic membership in Israeli's political community."

Nonetheless, as Gavison also pointed out, avoiding the use of the term "Jewish and democratic" when it is relevant, such as when an individual applies for Israeli citizenship, might create the false impression that the State of Israel's leaders do not view these fundamental characteristics as important.

What is plainly mandated here, as the presumably protracted process of legislating the oath plays out, is an intensified dialogue with Arab Israeli leaders, to endeavor - through both words and deeds - to assure the Arab population that a Jewish and democratic state will protect their individual rights.

Arab Israelis, meanwhile, should be encouraged to make more efforts to integrate into Israeli society. Performing national service is one central way. Citizenship, after all, entails not only benefits but a willingness to undertake obligations and responsibilities.

No to unilateralism

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas raised the possibility, during an Arab League meeting in Libya on Friday, of abandoning peace talks with Israel and turning to the UN Security Council and to the US to receive recognition for an independent Palestinian state delineated by the pre-1967 borders.

Israeli government officials ruled out this possibility as "unrealistic" and a "mirage."

Notwithstanding the Israeli officials' dismissive response to Abbas's threat - issued after Israel refused to extend a 10-month moratorium on new construction on the settlements in Judea and Samaria - the gambit of a unilateral declaration on the creation of a Palestinian state on territory presently under Israeli control is, unfortunately, looking increasingly possible. Supreme efforts should be made to prevent this from happening.

In February, PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, speaking at the Herzliya Conference, outlined a plan, first made public in August 2009, to establish unilaterally a de facto Palestinian state by August 2011. By that time, according to Fayyad, whom President Shimon Peres has compared to David Ben-Gurion, "the reality of [a Palestinian] state will impose itself on the world."

The Quartet (the US, EU, UN and Russia) has supported aspects of Fayyad's plan, as have international donors.

The concept of a "facts on the ground" approach to the creation of a Palestinian state is a radical departure from Palestinian nationalism's advocacy of a windfall success through violence or international diplomacy. Rather than seeking an impossible military victory over Israel or waiting for the sudden achievement of a major peace treaty, the state-building program seeks to create Palestine step by step.

Pro-Zionists such as Elliott Abrams, former deputy national security adviser for global democratic strategy in the Bush administration, have praised this "bottom up" approach to realizing Palestinian national self-determination. It is seen as a way to achieve a breakthrough in Middle East peace where two decades of Palestinian- Israeli negotiations have failed and unilateral Israeli withdrawals have led to the creation of terrorist enclaves in south Lebanon and Gaza.

Once a Palestinian state is created that is capable of self-government, maintaining law and order and preventing terrorism against Israel, proponents argue, a final-status agreement with Israel will be easy to attain.



THE PROBLEM with this approach is that it carries with it the danger that, at some point, the Palestinians will be tempted to make a unilateral declaration of independence without first reaching a final-status agreement with Israel.

Fayyad has said that his state-building plan "is intended to generate pressure" on Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. This apparently means that if Israel does not acquiesce to its demands on issues such as borders, security arrangements and Jerusalem during peace negotiations, the PA can always force Israel's hand through a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state along the pre-1967 lines.

Such a move would strike a terrible blow to what little confidence Israel has in the PA's leadership. No Israeli government would withdraw from the West Bank or parts of Jerusalem as a result of a unilateral Palestinian declaration or a UN resolution. Instead, Israel would be forced to tighten security around Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria. In parallel, the failure of Fayyad's bid would inevitably lead to the rise in the West Bank of Hamas, which would persuasively argue that violence and terrorism are the only means of achieving national liberation.

Though the PA should continue to institute reforms, build government institutions and plan new towns such as Rawabi, there is no substitute for negotiations - for dialogue, compromise and a commitment to long-term reconciliation. The US should make it absolutely clear to the Palestinians that it opposes any unilateral moves.

Such a US commitment, moreover, should not merely be a carrot used to entice Israel into extending the building moratorium, as reported in recent days, but as a fundamental principle guiding the process of achieving a two-state solution.

The Palestinians, too, must realize that only through negotiations can a lasting peace be achieved. Perhaps internalizing this fact will encourage the PA to devote more energies to convincing the Palestinian people of the need for a negotiated peace agreement with Israel.

For better or for worse, Israelis and Palestinians must learn to live peacefully, side by side in their own autonomous states. UN resolutions or unilateral declarations won't achieve this end. Only face-to-face talks and dialogue will do so.