While Barak is busy looking the other way (within) in his efforts to form a coalition government, and while the rest of the world is preparing for a “honeymoon” period with the new government, the last thing that the Palestinians can afford to do is adopt a “wait and see” mode.

The passive voice and stance habitually allow for other actors to dictate the agenda and course of action.

Internally, one cannot over-emphasize the repeated calls for empowerment through comprehensive reform, democratization, and overall restoration of confidence and unity.

Most urgently, however, serious preparatory steps must be undertaken to ensure optimum engagement and performance in the upcoming negotiations.

The Palestinian participants themselves must be fully qualified and prepared as a most effective negotiating team capable of handling permanent status issues with full knowledge of the facts and negotiating abilities.

To fulfill their tasks, the negotiators must be assured of three essential requirements:

A smooth and reliable political decision-making system to guide the negotiations and to take the necessary decisions in a timely and credible manner.

A professional team of specialized experts to provide accurate information and facts, to formulate policy recommendations and options, and to point out the implications and ramifications of any negotiating decision or agreement.

An active public awareness campaign, launched mainly through institutions of civil society and grass roots organizations, to engage the public in an open discussion of the issues and to sense the areas of consensus while preparing public opinion for potential agreements. Surveys and polls may be useful instruments to gauge both expectations and impact throughout the process.

In this context, the input of the Palestinian opposition must be included as a corrective force.

The most essential ingredient is the test of the Palestinian people’s willingness to accept, live with, and implement the agreements. No accord can survive in a vacuum, and only the people can give life and substance to the new realities that agreements seek to forge.

The Palestinian people are not only those who live in the West Bank (including Jerusalem) and Gaza. Palestinians in exile, particularly the large refugee population, must be an integral part of the whole process.

Permanent, or final, status issues are the crucial substance of Palestinian life and land, dealing with questions of sovereignty and self-determination. Hence the unity of the Palestinian people as a nation must be the cornerstone of all aspects of negotiations.

International legality must form the binding framework for all negotiations, without selectivity or prejudice. Neither the US nor Israel can unilaterally decide on the applicability of UN resolutions (181, 194, and others) or international conventions (the Fourth Geneva Convention).

Any partial, selective, or subjective handling of international law would be a precedent and an invitation for other states to exercise the same discretion.

No statute of limitations exists to nullify components of this legal body, and subsequent resolutions, which build on previous ones, do not negate their validity.

The agenda for permanent status talks is comprised of issues of sovereignty and the substantive requirements of a just peace. It is not subject to change or unilateral amendment or prejudicial measures and stances.

Permanent status negotiations must also adopt the comprehensive, integrated approach. While individual issues claim their own specificity, their interactive and interdependent nature requires a unified and coherent negotiating process. No issue can be handled in a vacuum or in isolation of the other components of the talks without undermining the integrity of the whole process and its objectives.

No interim phase issues, agreements, or steps of implementation can be carried over into final status negotiations. All must be completed before embarking on these negotiations and in a different framework. Disputes arising from the interim phase must also be resolved in a different, appropriate framework.

For disputes arising from final status negotiations or implementation, an appropriate system and mechanism for arbitration must be established separately, without giving either party any veto rights. Legitimacy, credibility, and enforcement capability must be ensured.

With the opening of such talks, the whole format adopted for interim phase negotiations must be replaced with a more suitable comprehensive participatory structure.

Since none of the components of the process are exclusively bilateral, it is inconceivable that their resolution can be bilateral. Hence, all concerned parties must be directly involved at the outset, particularly on such issues as borders, refugees, water rights, economic reconstruction, etc. The format for negotiations must be set up accordingly, and support expert committees on such issues must be established to enhance negotiations on specific issues.

Areas that deal with inter-Arab relations must be coordinated within the Arab framework beforehand, and cannot be resolved with Israel on a bilateral basis.

Sponsorship of the talks, by necessity, cannot be limited to a US monopoly. The UN, as the global body entrusted with peace making and as the universal source of collective legality and will, must become a direct participant as well as guardian of any agreements reached.

The European Union and other relevant actors from the international community must have a political role in negotiations commensurate with their other responsibilities in building and sustaining peace.

Since the objective of negotiations is to achieve a comprehensive and just peace, and in view of the existence of three negotiations tracks, it is essential that the tracks are not divided and that they proceed in a coordinated and integrated manner. Playing off one track against the other or creating a condition of competitive distrust among them will be detrimental to all tracks as well as to the objective itself. Progress must be achieved on all tracks in a mutually supportive comprehensive mode.

To ensure the comprehensiveness, legitimacy, and durability of peace, it is essential that serious work be undertaken in the Arab context to prepare for unified and cohesive Arab strategies capable of sustaining peace and enhancing its chances of success.

A candid and courageous dialogue is needed at the bilateral and collective levels, not only to overcome the rifts and other painful legacies of the past, but also to cement new and active relations based on mutual trust, respect, and convergence of interests and rights.

This requires a new mindset and a willingness to coordinate on substance and strategies. Attitudes of the past must not be superimposed on the future that is being formed. Personal grudges and localized agendas must not be tolerated in meeting the challenges facing the Arab World.

The centrality of the Palestinian question does not extract it from its Arab context. Rather it requires fully coordinated strategies and support and a genuine commitment to these unified positions by all member states.

Thus calls for an Arab summit must be based on such commitments, with sufficient preparation to ensure that effective mechanisms and plans are devised for sustained and qualitative coordination.

If the US is genuinely committed to peace, it must support rather than try to deflect such Arab coordination. Peace in the region cannot be made piecemeal, and its permanence depends on a collective Arab commitment and unified strategy. The days of “divide and conquer” both in the colonial and the peace eras are over.

The US must also come to terms with the new realities in the Arab world. Its total disregard of Arab public opinion exhibits an alarming lack of understanding of the emerging democratic forces and currents in the Arab world.

Again, the US must not take its Arab partners for granted, nor its interests and standing in the Arab world.

Its continued and unqualified support for Israel has been detrimental to these as well as to the peace process. The credibility of a peace broker requires even handedness, and the responsibility of power dictates uniform and objective standards—be they moral, legal, or political.

The usual American habit of putting pressure on the weak to accommodate the entrenchment of the strong must be abandoned. Palestinian rights cannot be undermined for the sake of Israeli priorities. A bold grasp of the issues and requirements of a stable peace is the most elementary requirement. So is even-handedness.

On that basis, the Palestinians are called upon to engage the US in a new and qualitative dialogue that is based on confidence and self-respect. Neither hostility and distrust nor obedience and subjugation must prevail. Rather a serious, sustained, and informed dialogue must be conducted with full awareness of the features of the new phase and its conditions.

The same dialogue and engagement must be carried out globally. The Palestinians must not take their friends and support for granted. Our discourse, both public and private, must rise to the level of mutual respect, confidence, and forthright candor. The maneuvers, manipulations, and rhetoric of the past have all proved their futility.

If we are to be global partners in the shaping of the 21st century agenda and realities, then we must possess the capabilities, values, instruments, and discourse of the future.

To do so, we must be confident in our identity and rights. Before we seek external justice, we must do justice unto ourselves.