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.

It's no secret that the Bush administration wants Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniya - and Hamas, the party he leads - out of power. Last Friday, it almost got its wish: Haniya offered to resign if the international embargo of the Palestinian territories were lifted. But even if Haniya steps down, he'll still call the shots for Hamas, the government's ruling party. FP recently sat down with the prime minister to ask how he intends to fix the Palestinian economy, whether the factional fighting can be ended, and if he sees peace on the horizon. Here's an excerpt from this ForeignPolicy.com exclusive:

FP: How do you plan to rein in the rival security forces in order to prevent civil war?

IH: It is in Hamas's interests that Palestinian factions unite peacefully without disputes and internal conflict. The communications between Fatah and Hamas are continuous and have on several occasions reached an understanding to end all forms of internal violence.

It is quite clear that the Palestinian security apparatus is suffering from problems. But despite all the bitter conflicts that have occurred, we will not end up embroiled in civil war, because every Palestinian is interested in keeping the Palestinian front united.

Check out the full interview. 

The U.N. High-Level Group of the Alliance of Civilizations presented its report today to Kofi Annan in Turkey. The initiative, comprised of 20 prominent world figures, was developed by the U.N. with a mandate of devising practical recommendations to counter the polarization between Muslim and Western societies. Their report calls for a concerted effort to tackle the problem of political marginalization, which they consider a greater threat than religious or cultural differences. They also contend that globalization has become...

...an assault [on many communities]....For them, the prospect of greater well-being has come at a high price, which includes cultural homogenization, family dislocation, challenges to traditional lifestyles, and environmental degradation.

Among its recommendations, the group urges a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, greater responsibility by political and religious leaders to avoid inflammatory language, the development of media and youth education programs that facilitate better understanding across cultures, and the creation of a High Representative position to defuse "crises that arise at the intersection of religion and politics." Members of the group include former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, and Georgetown's John Esposito.

Israeli Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh said recently that the possibility of military strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities is still on the table. "I consider it a last resort. But even the last resort is sometimes the only resort," he said. Don't consider it at all, Mr. Ephraim. It won't work and the United States can't help.

A summer 2004 Center for Nonproliferation Studies article explains the difficulties in attacking Iran, comparing it to Israel's 1981 surprise attack on Iraq's Osirak nuclear facilities. First, conducting what would optimally be a simultaneous air strike against nuclear facilities that are separated by hundreds of miles would be nearly impossible. Second, reaching the nuclear sites requires gaining permission from Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and/or Jordan to use their air space—a difficult task indeed. Third, some of Iran's nuclear facilities are underground, insulating them from bombardment, even from U.S. forces. Fourth, the Iraqi government did not pursue nuclear weapons in earnest until after the strikes on Osirak, meaning that a successful attack could turn Iran's currently "suspected" nuclear weapons ambitions into an overt reality. Fifth, such an attack by Israel or the United States would spark popular outrage around the Middle East, perhaps resulting in a regional war. I would like to add a sixth: the U.S. military's experiences in Iraq, a country that is much smaller both in terms of population and geography than Iran, show that occupying Iran is an impossiblity.

Make no mistake, I consider a nuclear-armed Iran to be an untenable prospect. But if diplomacy fails, there is no military solution.

If you're anything like us, you've been glued to your computer and television for poll results, press conferences, and high-level resignations for several days now. What a convenient time to release bad news or sweep unfortunate events under the rug. Here's some of what you missed when you were watching Anderson Cooper and Chris Matthews:

-Russia decided to weaken proposed sanctions on Iran for its nuclear program.

-Israeli bombs kill 20 in the Gaza town of Beit Hanun. Israel defends the action, calling it "preventative." Hamas calls off the cease-fire.

-Iraq's government extends a state of emergency in the wake of continuing sectarian violence in the country, including the deaths of eight soccer players.

-The European Union puts Turkey on notice for human rights issues and its role in Cyprus or risk ending accession talks.

-The UN adopted a resolution condemning the U.S. embargo of Cuba.

Ok, there's no evidence whatsoever that any of this is tied to midterm elections in America. In fact, it's probably not. But with campaign season finally over on the Hill and issues from Iranian nukes to Iraqi security on the agenda, it's time for congress to get back to work. 

In a New York Times op-ed today, Ahmed Yousef, a senior adviser to Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniya and speaking on behalf of Hamas, proposed a hudna (long-term truce) with the Israelis. The concept of hudna demands a peaceful resolution to the conflict, Yousef wrote. "[It] is no ruse, as some assert, to strengthen our military machine, to buy time to organize better or to consolidate our hold on the Palestinian Authority."

That "some" he references seems like a code word for pro-Israel and Israeli hardliners, right? After all, Israel Defense Forces Southern Command Chief Maj.-Gen. Yoav Galant recently told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that Hamas is developing a formal anti-tank unit.  But among those "some" is Musa Abu Marzouq, the former head of Hamas's Political Bureau. In a 1995 interview he told Khaled Hroub, a Palestinian journalist and author of the 2002 book Hamas: Political Thought and Practice, that hudna is an acceptable means to achieve an "interem solution" that creates a Palestinian state in the occupied territories, but "the best method in practice to achieve progress beyond the interim solution ... is jihad and armed resistance." Hroub's research shows that Hamas considers hudna a means to avoid direct conflict with Israel, while giving Hamas the chance "to alter the balance of power" in order to achieve its ultimate solution, a Middle East without Israel.   Hudna doesn't guarantee the resumption of violence, but it also doesn't take it off the table.

Now it is true, as Yousef wrote in his op-ed, that Hamas honors its cease-fires better than any other Palestinian organization. But until Hamas leaders retract their calls for the destruction of Israel and adapt the organization's charter to include the acceptance of a permanent two-state solution, there is no reason to believe that their offers of hudna are anything but dubious. 

Germany's leaders, always uber-cautious about deploying force, no doubt hoped their contribution to the UNIFIL peacekeeping force in Lebanon—a naval force operating off the coast—would stay well clear of controversy. No such luck. Earlier this week, two Israeli F-16s apparently conducted a low pass over German ships and may even have fired shots (though the IDF denies this). The Israeli and German governments moved quickly to quell the controversy, but it comes against a backdrop of continued tension between Israeli forces and UNIFIL over Israeli flights in Lebanese airspace.  

The BBC has regularly come under fire for bias in its coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflicts. But today, in an effort to make transparent its reporting on the Middle East, it has published its style guide on Israel/Palestinian coverage used by its journalists and correspondents. The Beeb explains why certain terms are used when covering the conflict, and also makes clear why it has taken a position on certain issues. Here's how the BBC explains the use of the word "barrier":

BBC journalists should try to avoid using terminology favoured by one side or another in any dispute. The BBC uses the terms "barrier", "separation barrier" or "West Bank barrier" as acceptable generic descriptions to avoid the political connotations of "security fence" (preferred by the Israeli government) or "apartheid wall" (preferred by the Palestinians).

In all of the BBC's attempts to be neutral, is it actually possible to remain completely unbiased on a matter of such high contention?