By Ilan Ziv and Daoud Kuttab*

In 1993, following the signing of the Oslo accords, we collaborated on a joint Israeli-Palestinian documentary. By giving video cameras to three Palestinians and three Israelis, we set out to document the first year of the implementation of the " peace process".

Our "Peace Diaries" unfortunately became a record of the early violence that followed the signing of the Israeli /Palestinian accord. Among the scenes was the first suicide bombing in a small town, Afula, in the North of Israel and the killing of 29 Palestinian worshippers in a Hebron mosque by a Jewish settler.

Now almost eight years and many more deaths later, we realize that unwittingly our cameras captured the beginning of yet another vicious cycle of Israeli and Palestinian attacks, counter attacks, suicide bombings, assassinations and collective punishment.

This cycle of violence has served as a cover for the extremists in both societies to torpedo the peace process in which they never believed in the first place. Settlements have been built, Palestinian land has been an expropriated, and weapons have been stockpiled. Militant organizations were given free hand to grow and propagate their ideology of hate and revenge. Killing became cheap. Neither Israel nor the Palestinian Authority has bothered to investigate or prosecute his or her own killers in what has retracted into a tribal conflict. The only victors have become the extremists, whether in or out of governments.

This apparent victory of the extremes in both societies is a Pyrrhic one indeed. It does not only promise a blood soaked future but threatens to roll back any achievements of the past 50 years. The Palestinian dream of statehood is being equated with terrorism, and Israel, envisioned as a Jewish safe haven, is probably one of the unsafe places for Jews to live today.

The international communities, which have supported the peace process, have watched this unfolding tragedy but for obvious reasons have been reluctant to forcefully intervene. We think this inaction will come with a price. As the conflict in the Balkans or the chaos left in Afghanistan following the departure of the Soviet troops proved, these oozing wounds in our interconnected world turn to contaminate and infect the entire international body politic. Ethnically based political conflicts like the Israeli-Palestinian one are rarely resolved by the parties themselves. The historic memories, traumas, and tribal instincts are just too deep, being nurtured and sustained by continuous cycles of violence.

But if the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia is an example of intractable ethnic conflict, it is also proof that with the active engagement of the international community this process of self-destruction can be arrested and possibly reversed. The West ‘s success in Bosnia and Kosovo could provide us with a road map.

The first step is the establishment of an International Tribunal for War Crimes. The tribunal, as the example of the former Yugoslavia teaches us, can become a powerful force in managing the conflict. It helps to establish an objective historical record. It holds a mirror to both societies, revealing how self-righteousness and indulgence in their own sense of victim hood has led to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity. Let an international body of jurists examine the self-serving rhetoric that labels suicide bombings against civilians "military actions ", and assassinations and collective punishment against towns and villages "necessary defensive measures. "

Indictment and prosecution of those responsible, whether political leaders or local military commanders would send a powerful deterring message to others. An international tribunal could prove to be much more successful in ushering the illusive "cooling off" period envisioned in the Mitchell Report, than dozens of American and European mediation missions. The establishment of such a tribunal must not be a substitute for negotiations.

Concurrently, intensive political engagement to create an internationally supervised peace conference must take place. Rather than another Camp David, this should be another Dayton Peace conference, like the one that ended the conflict between Bosnians, Croats and the Serbs. Compromise must be found or it will be imposed. It then needs to be enforced and protected by an armed international force. We believe, despite the rhetoric from both sides, that the majority of our people would welcome these peacekeepers as liberators from terror and occupation.

The road from a single car bomb in Afula to the carnage of the past weeks was paved with lofty rhetoric and high hopes. Left to their own, the extremes in both of our societies that so "successfully" led us to the present abyss will continue in their relentless pursuit of the apocalypse. In the process, they will debase our respective cultural, religious and national heritage and mock every international law.

Our documentary, which began with the Arafat-Rabin handshake in the White House, ended with the violence that preceded the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. What we envisioned as "Peace Diaries" turned into a documentary we called "On the Edge of Peace." We are tired of being on the edge of peace or on the edge of war. We still hope for a genuine peace process that can lead to an independent Palestine alongside a safe and secure Israel.

* Ilan Ziv is an Israeli documentary producer currently living in New York City. Daoud Kuttab is a Palestinian journalist and TV producer living in Ramallah and Amman.

Yasser Arafat interrupted two television programs in the past week to make a simple point. It is difficult to uphold a unilateral cease-fire. Speaking from a prepared text to the Palestinian people on the occasion of Eid al Fitr Arafat reiterated the Palestinian Authority’s commitment to a cease-fire. Arafat’s impromptu comments to his people in Arabic on Palestinian TV were very telling. "Hold you fire even if the Israelis shoot at you," he said in Arabic. A week earlier on Israel’s first channel Arafat was asked if he can promise the Israeli public that there will be no more suicide bombings." We need to work together with you to be able to do that," he told the Israeli interviewer.

The point that the Palestinian president has been trying to make is that it is impossible for the Middle East to be calm without a concerted cooperative atmosphere that includes both a security effort and an equally zealous political effort. Although the Palestinian leader was publicly criticized recently, the US envoy General Zinni is said to have been equally unhappy with the Israeli prime minister because he refused to a cease fire agreement that included a commitment to end of Israeli assassination and incursion policies.

To be successful cease-fire agreements normally contain within them two elements- a functional element and a political one. And because cease-fire agreement are reached between enemies that don’t trust each other, a trusted third party is necessary to make sure both parties uphold any such agreement.

On the functional level, Palestinians and Israelis need to use all their physical and persuasive powers to stop members of their own forces or individuals working in areas under their control to cease from initiating fire. Naturally this doesn’t and shouldn’t include people protesting using non-lethal means. It is also fair to state that parties can’t be asked to enforce a cease-fire agreement in areas not under their full security control. Cease fire agreements of course have to be bilateral. One party can’t expect the other to cease-fire while it continues to use fire under any pretext other than the other side opening fire against. Using the term acts of self-defensive to justify booby trap a street to an elementary school or to shell a police station clinic (as the Israelis did in recent weeks) should not be tolerated.

Cease fire agreements, however, often fail because parties to these agreements fail to honor or follow through the second most crucial element of such agreements, namely the political one. A political clause gives people hope and allows leaders to enforce tough actions against their own people in the hope that a political settlement will be reached. Following through on the political elements of any such agreement guarantees the longevity of the agreement and promises to move from what is a temporary truce to a much more stable peace treaty.

The guarantor of a cease fire agreement must be a party that is respected by both sides for impartiality and often times this third party is given permission to bring a force of its own that will make sure that both parties honor their commitments.

Without teeth, such agreements are quickly broken with both sides blaming the other party for being the first to shatter the cease-fire.

If these are basic principles for cease fire agreements what would an effective cease-fire agreement look like? Here is the draft of such agreement.

1. Both Israelis and Palestinians commit to immediately cease the use of firepower, whether from handguns, helicopters, ships, mortars or tanks.

2. The Palestinian Authority commits to 100% effort to prevent attacks against Israelis including suicide bombings.

3. Israeli soldiers agree to withdraw to areas they were in before the outbreak of the present conflict on September 28, 2000.

4. Palestinian security forces shall ensure that no one will use territories under their control termed areas "A" to initiate fire. This will include dismantling all non-PA security groups.

5. Israel shall commit to allow the movement of people and goods freely within the Palestinian cities and villages, as well as leaving the land crossings and Gaza International Airport permanently open.

6. Palestinians working in Israel will be allowed to return to the levels reached before September 28th, 2000.

7. The safe passage road between Gaza and the West Bank shall be immediately opened.

8. Israel shall stop its policy of assassinations and incursions into "A" Palestinian areas.

9. The Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority agree to fulfill all remaining clauses of the interim agreement including the third Israelis redeployment, the opening up of the northern passage way between Gaza and Ramallah, the abolition of the civil administration and the annulment of all Israeli military orders signed into law since June 1967.

10. Palestinian and Israeli negotiators shall go back to the permanent status talks on the basis of relevant UN resolutions including 242, 338.

11. An armed multinational peace force shall be organized consisting of soldiers from the US, Canada, Turkey, Malaysia, India and Australia with the aim of enforcing this agreement and publicly exposing any violators.

12. The details of this agreement shall be announced by senior Palestinian and Israeli officials simultaneously on Palestine and Israel TV at 1100 hours on the morning of such and such date December, 2001.

Ramallah – The unilateral cease-fire call by four armed Palestinian resistance groupings reflects the main contradiction of approaches between Israel and the Palestinian National Authority. Israel wants these organizations crushed while the Palestinian leader wants them coopted.

Israel considers Hamas, Jihad, and recently, the Fatah Tanzim to be terrorist’s organizations. And in Israel’s eyes they must be annihilated. Unable since the late 80s to crush these Palestinian militant organizations, Israel has been trying since the Oslo Agreement to have the Palestinian National Authority to do this difficult job.

The Palestinian National Authority was, for a period of time, willing to do just that evens if it negatively affects Palestinian unity. In the eyes of Palestinian president Arafat, the peace process, which seemed to be producing results on the ground, was a higher national interest even than internal unity. As long as Israel was withdrawing from Palestinian lands and the dream of Palestinian statehood was getting closer to reality, the Palestinian leader had little problem in arresting militants and using his security forces to break up any attempts to derail this peace process. The derailing of the peace process was exactly the aim of the Islamic movements and for a while even the late Yitzhak Rabin was able to understand that. After one gruesome suicide bombing in Israel, Rabin was quoted as saying, "we will mourn for a week and on the eighth day we will go back to negotiations because the aim of these extremists is to stop the peace process. The assassination of Rabin brought an end to this PA-Israel cooperation in the peace process and ushered in right wing Israeli governments. These governments used anti Israeli attacks, regardless of the perpetuators, as an excuse to stop or slow down the peace talks.

For the Palestinian leadership, the idea of attempting to crush the opposition without the presence of hope for a political future is tantamount to political suicide. This is why Arafat has always insisted on the need for a political clause in any cease-fire agreement. Even the Americans understood the need to provide Palestinians with hope when President Bush and Secretary Powel publicly supported the idea of a Palestinian state.

This American slimmer of hope provided Arafat with yet another opportunity to move ahead. The situation on the ground was not helping. Sharon was demanding unilateral Palestinian quite as a precondition while refusing to agree to stop assassinations, the siege of the Palestinian areas or provide any political incentives.

The suicide bombings in Jerusalem and Haifa followed by the Israeli harsh response and America’s green light to these attacks put Arafat in a bind. The international public support for Palestinians was evaporating and the pro Israeli media machine was having a great time making analogies with Ben Laden and the Taliban. Israel was telling the world that its very existence was what Palestinians were after. By encouraging all militant groups to support his unilaterally cease fire calls, by refraining to make attacks inside Israel, the Palestinian leader is hoping to provide America and the west with the needed formula to force Israel back to the negotiating table. He also postpones once again having to decide between a hesitant peace process and an internal civil war.

The mission of retired general Anthony Zinni, the new U.S. peace envoy to the Middle East, became more difficult after the weekend’s bloody suicide bombings and retaliatory shootings between Israelis and Palestinians. But if someone is looking for reasons for this upsurge of violence — and for the way out of it — one needs to take one step forward, not two steps back.

Let’s start with a look at the mistaken Israeli attempt to end the violence in the occupied territories without simultaneously working on a political solution. All foreign envoys to the region, as well as Israel’s own Foreign Minister, Shimon Peres, have been encouraging Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, to begin negotiations with Palestinians aimed at finding a political solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Instead, Israel’s right-wing leader has set his own conditions on Palestinians before he is willing to begin political talks. Mr. Sharon wants Palestinians who have been waging a war of resistance against the Israeli military occupation to cease all violence for seven days before he will agree to talks.

The condition of seven days of quiet is not matched by a similar demand on Israel to stop its own acts of oppression against Palestinians. Mr. Sharon has refused U.S. requests to lift the siege — the heightened security regime — that has trapped three million Palestinians and turned their territory into a large prison. Israel has not even accepted the request made by former U.S. secretary of state Madeleine Albright — and repeated by a respected international committee headed by former U.S. senator George Mitchell — asking Israel to take a "time out" and freeze illegal Jewish settlement activities in Palestinian areas.

Mr. Sharon’s most harmful position, though, has been his refusal to stop the policies of assassination and brutal attempts aimed at crushing the Palestinian intifada or uprising. Just before Mr. Zinni arrived in the region, Israeli forces, using American-made Apache helicopters, assassinated a senior Palestinian guerrilla leader, Mahmoud Abu Hanoud, and two of his aides. The Israelis had previously used F-16 fighters to bomb a Palestinian prison where Mr. Hanoud was held. Eleven Palestinian jailers were killed during the prison raid.

Last week, five Palestinian children were killed by a booby-trap placed by Israeli soldiers on the road to their school in the Gaza Strip. And unlike the suicide bombings carried out by militant Palestinian organizations, the above killings were carried out, and responsibility was admitted, by the Israeli army.

Of course the killing of innocent civilians, all civilians, must be condemned and cannot be justified. An immediate ceasefire is certainly necessary. And although no ceasefire of record has ever been agreed upon without a political component of some sort, Mr. Sharon basically wants the Palestinian leadership to violently crack down on their own militants, offering in return only the hope that Mr. Sharon would make a peace proposal in future talks.

In other words, Mr. Sharon, whose hands have been soaked in Palestinian blood since the killings of Palestinians in Qibbya in 1955, in Gaza in the 1970s, and implicated in the Lebanese Christian massacres of Palestinians at Sabra and Shatila in 1982, wants Palestinians to trust him.

Mr. Sharon has not revealed a viable political plan that would encourage even the most dovish Palestinians to trust him. In published statements he has proposed to return, salami-style, less than 50 per cent of Palestinian territories occupied by Israel in 1967 — despite UN Security Council Resolution 242, which has called on Israel to withdraw from the Palestinian lands.

While trust has long been lost between Palestinians and Israelis, both parties have put their faith in the government of the United States. The U.S. has the mandate from both parties as well as the international community to use every effort at its disposal to encourage, cajole, pressure and, if need be, twist the arms of both parties until they agree to a solution to this century-long conflict. Even hardline Israelis and Palestinians will accept a fair solution that can end the bloodshed.

The guidelines for such a solution already exist in binding international agreements, in bilateral and multilateral agreements as well as in points of convergence agreed to as late as last year in the Egyptian resort city of Taba. What is needed now is the political will to put these agreements down in a process that has a time limit.

Palestinians need the hope of a future of freedom and independence; Israelis need a feeling of personal and collective security. Former U.S. president George Bush Sr. put it simply in Madrid 10 years ago: Land for Peace.

Too much time has elapsed since those important words. The time has come to stop the killings, to stop the bloodshed, and to bring about a peace process that can provide for an independent state of Palestine alongside a safe state of Israel within recognized borders.

The mission of retired general Anthony Zinni, the new U.S. peace envoy to the Middle East, became more difficult after the weekend’s bloody suicide bombings and retaliatory shootings between Israelis and Palestinians. But if someone is looking for reasons for this upsurge of violence — and for the way out of it — one needs to take one step forward, not two steps back.

Let’s start with a look at the mistaken Israeli attempt to end the violence in the occupied territories without simultaneously working on a political solution. All foreign envoys to the region, as well as Israel’s own Foreign Minister, Shimon Peres, have been encouraging Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, to begin negotiations with Palestinians aimed at finding a political solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Instead, Israel’s right-wing leader has set his own conditions on Palestinians before he is willing to begin political talks. Mr. Sharon wants Palestinians who have been waging a war of resistance against the Israeli military occupation to cease all violence for seven days before he will agree to talks.

The condition of seven days of quiet is not matched by a similar demand on Israel to stop its own acts of oppression against Palestinians. Mr. Sharon has refused U.S. requests to lift the siege – the heightened security regime — that has trapped three million Palestinians and turned their territory into a large prison. Israel has not even accepted the request made by former U.S. secretary of state Madeleine Albright — and repeated by a respected international committee headed by former U.S. senator George Mitchell — asking Israel to take a "time out" and freeze illegal Jewish settlement activities in Palestinian areas.

Mr. Sharon’s most harmful position, though, has been his refusal to stop the policies of assassination and brutal attempts aimed at crushing the Palestinian intifada or uprising. Just before Mr. Zinni arrived in the region, Israeli forces, using American-made Apache helicopters, assassinated a senior Palestinian guerrilla leader, Mahmoud Abu Hanoud, and two of his aides. The Israelis had previously used F-16 fighters to bomb a Palestinian prison where Mr. Hanoud was held. Eleven Palestinian jailers were killed during the prison raid.

Last week, five Palestinian children were killed by a booby-trap placed by Israeli soldiers on the road to their school in the Gaza Strip. And unlike the suicide bombings carried out by militant Palestinian organizations, the above killings were carried out, and responsibility was admitted, by the Israeli army.

Of course the killing of innocent civilians, all civilians, must be condemned and cannot be justified. An immediate ceasefire is certainly necessary. And although no ceasefire of record has ever been agreed upon without a political component of some sort, Mr. Sharon basically wants the Palestinian leadership to violently crack down on their own militants, offering in return only the hope that Mr. Sharon would make a peace proposal in future talks.

In other words, Mr. Sharon, whose hands have been soaked in Palestinian blood since the killings of Palestinians in Qibbya in 1955, in Gaza in the 1970s, and implicated in the Lebanese Christian massacres of Palestinians at Sabra and Shatila in 1982, wants Palestinians to trust him.

Mr. Sharon has not revealed a viable political plan that would encourage even the most dovish Palestinians to trust him. In published statements he has proposed to return, salami-style, less than 50 per cent of Palestinian territories occupied by Israel in 1967 — despite UN Security Council Resolution 242, which has called on Israel to withdraw from the Palestinian lands.

While trust has long been lost between Palestinians and Israelis, both parties have put their faith in the government of the United States. The U.S. has the mandate from both parties as well as the international community to use every effort at its disposal to encourage, cajole, pressure and, if need be, twist the arms of both parties until they agree to a solution to this century-long conflict. Even hardline Israelis and Palestinians will accept a fair solution that can end the bloodshed.

The guidelines for such a solution already exist in binding international agreements, in bilateral and multilateral agreements as well as in points of convergence agreed to as late as last year in the Egyptian resort city of Taba. What is needed now is the political will to put these agreements down in a process that has a time limit.

Palestinians need the hope of a future of freedom and independence; Israelis need a feeling of personal and collective security. Former U.S. president George Bush Sr. put it simply in Madrid 10 years ago: Land for Peace.

Too much time has elapsed since those important words. The time has come to stop the killings, to stop the bloodshed, and to bring about a peace process that can provide for an independent state of Palestine alongside a safe state of Israel within recognized borders.