The two interdependent issues which hover over every aspect of the Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations are satisfying Israel's national security requirements while meeting the Palestinian demand to end the Israeli occupation. Whereas the Palestinians must understand that unless Israel feels secure, there will be no independent Palestinian state, similarly, Israel must recognize that a two-state solution must mean an end to Israeli occupation in any form. To achieve these two objectives, both sides must carefully consider not only each other's requirements, but also demonstrate sensitivity to each other's mindset, which has been ingrained for decades and continues to fuel their conflicting positions.

Settlement construction in the West Bank has historically served four main objectives for Israel: greater security, a stronger connection to ancient biblical lands, a better way of life for residents, and pressure on the Palestinians to accept the reality of Israel's existence. Today, each of these goals has been largely met. The settlement enterprise has therefore run its course. It now represents an albatross that threatens to thwart Israel's chance to achieve lasting peace and security.

The negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority can potentially succeed, but such a success cannot be sustained unless Hamas is brought into the political process in some capacity. Concessions made or breakthroughs achieved must represent the majority of the electorates, as there can be no lasting peaceful solution without recreating a unified Palestinian polity in the West Bank and Gaza. The Arab states should therefore heed President Obama's call to meaningfully contribute to the peace process by pressing Hamas to renounce violence and accept the principles of the Arab Peace Initiative as a common frame of reference for advancing Palestinian unity and a comprehensive resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Of all the conflicting issues Israelis and Palestinians must resolve in the negotiations – including territorial claims, secure borders and the future of East Jerusalem – the Palestinian refugee problem in particular has the potential to stymie any pragmatic solution to the conflict. As Israelis and Palestinians renew direct talks, the European Union can and must begin to play a key role in helping the parties resolve this difficult and thorny issue.

Now is the time for Turkey to play a meaningful role in curbing Iran's ambition to acquire nuclear weapons. As sanctions intensify – and before Israel or the United States seriously consider taking more coercive (including military) action against Iran's nuclear facilities – Turkey's unique position, influence over and experience with Iran could be utilized. But for Turkey to play such a role, it must display the moral equivalence and the kind of pragmatic leadership that can engender confidence in its meditation efforts in the region.

As direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians are launched this week, it will be critical that the talks address the religious dimension of the conflict. This has been given only scant attention thus far, despite the fact that it has, and will continue to have, a tremendous impact on the ultimate outcome of the negotiations. Religious radicals – both Jewish and Muslim – seek to transform the Israeli-Palestinian dispute from a territorial and national conflict to a religious one, fueled by the conviction that God bequeathed the land exclusively to one faith. It is a view that prevents rational discourse between the sides and leads to the conclusion that agreeing to a two-state solution to the conflict would be tantamount to defying God's will. However, it is time that leaders on both sides – with the assistance of the United States – begin to challenge those who purport to seek God's will to consider that Jews and Muslims may be intended to share the land after all.

The Obama administration's success in moving the Israeli-Palestinian talks from proximity to direct negotiations is an important achievement for making real progress. However, direct talks will not produce substantive results unless the United States takes a number of pivotal steps to insure that the progress made in the negotiations is irreversible, and will eventually lead to a final agreement. This is the only way the United States can avoid the pitfalls of past bilateral negotiations, so that if-for whatever reasons-the negotiations stall or break down, they can be resumed from where they were left off.

Israel's chief reservation regarding the Arab Peace Initiative is the way in which the text addresses the issue of Palestinian refugees. Specifically, the Initiative calls upon Israel to affirm: "achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194." Israelis have largely rejected this passage, believing that it in effect is calling for the "right of return" of Palestinian refugees to Israel, something that would destroy the Jewish character of the state. But a closer look at the Initiative indicates that its mention of 194 need not be the Achilles' heel that Israel has made it out to be.

Earlier this summer I was in Jerusalem meeting with various officials and catching up with old friends. Minutes after meeting a friend, a former high-up official in Israel's Foreign Earlier this summer I was in Jerusalem meeting with various officials and catching up with old friends. Minutes after meeting a friend, a former high-up official in Israel's Foreign Ministry, he ran back to see me. "Alon, come quick, you have to speak with this guy," he told me. After our meeting, he had walked into a pharmacy where the pharmacist saw that he was carrying the brochure I published, "Israel and the Arab Peace Initiative." I went to the pharmacy to speak with the pharmacist and after I confirmed that I was the author of the brochure, he said, "You do not really believe that peace with the Arabs is possible, do you? ‘Arab' and ‘peace' are oxymoronic. There is no such thing."