It is quite natural for there to be deep distrust between two peoples engaged in a protracted conflict, and for good reasons on both sides—for example, between Israelis and Palestinians. A small illustrative example: Israelis experienced the deadly Al-Aqsa Intifada following relatively generous offers from the Barak government and after a peace summit; Palestinians witnessed a surge in settlement construction precisely after the Oslo Accords were signed. Trust was sharply eroded on both sides.

For this reason, there is both a moral and practical imperative to address this distrust—not by abandoning caution or ignoring warning signs (such as suspicion, fear, and risk assessment), but by taking measured steps that involve calculated risks. This raises the question: do we seek to resolve the distrust even while exercising maximum caution, or do we aim to preserve it as a justification for a pre-determined political agenda? Broadly speaking, there are two ways to approach this issue:

The first approach is to proceed cautiously—through small, trust-building tests that, even if they fail, do not result in disaster. Examples might include pilot governance projects for the Palestinian Authority in additional small areas of existing enclaves or even granting the PA limited control over the territories as a........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)