In the aftermath of this week's mixed results for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, there are, from an Israeli perspective, five reasons for trying to maintain the status quo in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict:

• First, a large rightist, religious and secular, pro–status quo constituency supports such a policy.
• Second, there is a fear of creating dissent and division by appearing to make any type of concession, including moving toward reopening negotiations.
• Third, the seeming absence of any serious threat to the status quo supports a do-nothing approach.
• Fourth, the Arab states are busy with internal affairs driven by the recent political upheavals, and this focus has been at the expense of the Palestinian issue. Evidence of this can be seen in the lack of serious responses to the Palestinian leadership’s repeated calls for financial assistance to head off the ongoing human and economic disasters resulting from the economic strangulation of the Palestinian territories.
• Fifth, the Palestinians are absorbed in their own internal politics and divisions, with Hamas and the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority still unable to reconcile their differences and develop a common policy and strategy for action. 

That said, there are five reasons to push for a serious effort at conflict resolution rather than settling for conflict management:

• First, the Palestinian issue is identity based, involving recognition of the national rights and self-determination for a people living under occupation. This issue will, thus, not disappear with time.
• Second, in the absence of serious opportunities for peace, the alternative will be more radicalization and thus more difficulty in one day reaching a negotiated settlement. Radicalization of the discourse and actions on one side will only produce the same on the other side.
• Third, the Palestinian issue remains central to solidarity and identity in the Arab world, whether expressed through a pan-Arab or pan-Islamic prism or a combination of the two. It thus remains a major source of policy legitimacy in the region. Even if issues related to domestic changes in the Arab world dominate the agenda, it will not be to the exclusion of pan-Arab issues, and thus the Palestinian situation, but will be joined in a complex, complementary manner as already evident.
• Fourth, given the open political systems resulting from the recent revolutionary changes in the Arab world, and the strengthening roles of civil society and public opinion, it will be difficult for any Arab government to exhibit a lack of support regarding the Palestinian issue. This will be particularly true should a major crisis emerge, a third intifada erupt or acts of violence be perpetrated against the Palestinian population. Such incidents could unleash events and effects that the current governments will not be able to contain, unlike their authoritarian predecessors.
• Fifth, the window of opportunity for the comprehensive Arab peace initiative, now more than ten years old, will soon be closed. More important, the viability of a future Palestinian state will continue to disappear under Israel’s policy of settlement expansion. The strategic implications of the latter — as witnessed with the E-1 project and the imposed demographic changes in Jerusalem to “de-Palestinize” the eastern part of the city — are also loaded with symbolism that transcends the territorial dimension of the conflict. A settlement with two states living side by side will disappear, and with it, any serious chance at reaching a legitimate, comprehensive peace, thus taking the conflict back to square one.

Although the first five reasons above may comfort and encourage the victorious rightist coalition by allowing it to safely sustain Netanyahu’s current policy, it is not a wise or safe path for Israel, the Palestinians or the stability and security of the Middle East, the interests of which extend far beyond the region. 

Ambassador Nassif Hitti is head of the Arab League Mission in Paris, a permanent observer at UNESCO and a member of the Al-Monitor board of directors. The views presented here are his alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of these organizations.