Serious, honest debates between people who support the Palestinian perspective of the conflict and those who support the Israeli perspective, are a rarity. It is often the case that when the two parties are brought together, a shouting match ensues, with the participants talking past each other, asserting their respective points of view with great vehemence, and then parting ways at the height of disagreement, without even coming to an honest, clear-headed mutual understanding of what is at the heart of the disagreement.

Below is an attempt to bring the two sides together in a debate aimed at pinpointing precisely where and how the two perspectives clash. The modest hope is that with real understanding we will take a small step towards peace.

The debate starts with each side asking 5 "tough" questions -- i.e., questions meant to fundamentally challenge the worldview posited by the other side. They will then answer them and open the floor to public debate. People are invited to participate freely, but only those who respect the spirit of the debate -- i.e., be constructive and not inflammatory -- are welcome.

1) Israel has been "cracking down" against terrorism for three decades now, and yet to this day suicide bombings continue to take place -- why does Israel continue following a policy that is patently a failure?

2) If Israel were serious about a long-lasting peace with the Palestinians, then why did it double the size of its settlements in the occupied territories between 1993 and 2000?

3) If Palestinians were only intent on destroying Israel, then why did attacks against Israelis taper off to nothing when Barak seemed to be making progress towards peace?

4) If Israel really wants Arafat to reign in militants, as it says it does, then why does it make it both politically and physically impossible for him to do so by humiliating him, denouncing him as a criminal, and physically dismantling his security apparatus and the infrastructure of his authority?

5) If Israel were really interested in ensuring the security of its citizens, then why does it carry out assassinations, knowing full well that such assassinations will only trigger another wave of suicide bombings and escalate the cycle of violence?

1) Why does the PA only crack down on overt terrorist groups and their well-known leaders when forced to by external forces or events?

2) Why don't Palestinians admit that many of Israel's security concerns are real and must be addressed as a major part of any peace?

3) Why haven't the Palestinians truly given passive, non-violent resistance a real, sustained try in their entire history, vis-à-vis Israel (particularly since other nations and slighted groups have done so in history)?

4) Israel was founded as a Jewish State, a homeland for a long mistreated and maligned people. If Palestinians were truly willing to accept Israel as a permanent neighbor, then why continue to push the antithetical position that Zionism is racism?

5) If a peace agreement with Israel entailed the following - secure and contiguous borders, fair access to water, dismantling of some or all settlements, a shared Jerusalem and possibly some monetary compensation - would the Palestinian people be willing to give up the right of return? In other words, is the right of return negotiable or inviolable?

1) The PA does harshly "crack down" on militants, risking civil war and internecine strife, when hellfire is unleashed against it; but we must keep in mind that the best security results -- almost a whole year of no attacks on Israel during Barak's administration -- were obtained when the Israelis and Palestinians were cooperating with one another as partners. Arafat may appease the Israelis by doing what he does best -- jail his opposition -- but to think that forcing him to do so by destroying his helicopters and flattening his police stations will bring about a more stable security situation is a bit far fetched.

2) The Palestinians HAVE admitted that Israel has security concerns and have said as much repeatedly. Here is a quote from an official memorandum released by the Palestinian Negotiating Team in January, 2001: "The original Oslo Accords had mandated that the peace talks be concluded three years ago with a Palestinian state and an Israeli state living in freedom, security, and equality side by side." Given that the Palestinians are signatories to the Oslo Accords, it follows that they have officially admitted and accepted "that many of Israel's security concerns are real and must be addressed as a major part of any peace."

3) To be sure, the non-violent option has not been pursued as energetically as it should. But here my answer is two-fold: (a) The Israel occupation has done its darnest to quell any movement toward non-violent resistance. More than once, Palestinians have for instance attempted to protest by not paying taxes. Israel reacted each time by "cracking down" on them as if they were terrorists; and (b) Visit Hanan Ashrawi's Miftah group, http://www.miftah.org , for an example of a growing effort to push forward a non-violent resistance movement with a strategy for the future. No one talks about such efforts -- certainly not the US media -- since they don't fit the easy caricature of mad, violent Palestinians.

4) The proposition that Zionism is a form of racism may be jarring to those who champion Zionism, but it is still the moral duty of the world to point out that a state that explicitly -- via its law of return for Jews, for instance, or its stated policy of increasing the Jewish population in Israel, or its practice of denying Arabs the appropriation of property -- promotes the welfare of one specific ethnic group at the expense of another is engaging in racism. Moreover, the racism issue is not a side question, but goes to the heart of a VERY important piece of the puzzle towards peace: the right of Palestinian refugees and their descendents driven from their homes in 1948 and later, to return home. Israel has time and again objected to their return not by arguing that they are not legally entitled to reclaim their property, but by saying that if they were allowed to return, the Jewish character of Israel would be upset. That is patently a racist policy and a fundamental road block to peace. The real question is: how can Israel pursue Zionist goals and at the same time claim to be an egalitarian, liberal modern democracy?

5) Only those whose land, houses, and property, were illegally taken over by the Israeli state have the right to negotiate over their right of return. Any deal MUST take their respective voices into consideration, and no one has the right to speak on their behalf without their assent, be it the Palestinian Authority, the United Nations, or any other legal entity. I am certain that a morally acceptable solution to this problem does exist. The question is: does Israel have the will to consider such solutions, or is ITS rejection of any right of Palestinian return claims -- as stated by Barak in the height of his "generosity" -- categorical and non-negotiable.

1) Failure of Palestinian leaders to articulate a specific mission and a clear vision for their struggle. As much as they have been successful in mobilizing public world opinion to their side, they still have not been able to do it to the successful extent that the South Africans were able to do against Apartheid.

2) Absence of a long-term non-violent strategy that unites all Palestinians in their struggle against the occupation. The Palestinian cause can be pushed quite far if the Palestinian leadership invested some of its effort in developing creative non-violent resistance effort against which the IDF would be totally powerless.

3) Failure of Arabs and Muslims to offer the Palestinians strong and consistent backing beyond the usual empty rhetoric: e.g., money, economic sanctions against the United States (as in passing legislation that would block Arab companies from doing business with US companies and passing them over for European companies).

4) Cynical exploitation of the Palestinian struggle by Arab dictators primarily concerned with detracting attention from their miserable regimes.

5) Lack of respect for democratic principles and the rule of law by the Palestinian Authority, and the attendant corruption.

1) Israelis should work much harder to empathize with the predicament of the Palestinians and translate that empathy into action.

2) I have lots of criticism for the whole settlement movement.

3) I don't agree with the basic format of the Israeli government - I believe in the American system, the two-party, representative democratic system - I think that it fosters moderation. The current parliamentary system with multiple parties fosters too much catering to extreme elements.

4) I yearn for greater Jewish religious diversity in Israel - there is too much polarization between the ultra-Orthodox and the secular - I think that the secular position is attractive as a response to the ultra-Orthodox.

5) I wish that more visionary leaders were at hand to lead the way to a firm, just peace.

1) I sympathize with the Israelis' need to ensure their security and I recognize the historical wrongs suffered upon Jews in general.

2) I admire the Israelis' respect for freedom of expression: Israeli newspapers, for instance, are far more informative and accepting of dissent than are American newspapers.

3) I respect how the Israelis were able to resurrect a virtually dead language - Hebrew.

4) I respect the Israelis' technological sophistication (minus their military war machine)

5) To the extent that the Israelis respect the rule of law and to the extent that they abide by the principles of democratic participation and inclusion, I do admire their democratic society. I also admire the various Israeli peace-seeking groups and those who have stood up against oppression and injustice, and more importantly, I respect the fact that they can engage in such activities without fear from despotic repression -- which is much more than I can say for the Arab and Muslim regimes of today.

1) I respect the high level of education amongst the Palestinian people.

2) I respect the perseverance to achieve nationhood.

3) I sympathize with those who lose loved ones in the conflict very much, particularly the innocents. I also sympathize with those parents who see their children become lost to the dark side in the struggle. I sympathize with those who lost their property in the late 40's as a result of being forced to leave. They deserve some compensation.

4) I sympathize with the very restricted life that is imposed due to the conflict - the roadblocks, the lost economic and educational opportunities.

5) I feel very badly for those Palestinians who foresaw a building of democratic institutions in their territories as a result of Oslo, and instead got despotic, corrupt government instead.