Military occupation is not normal. Holding a population against its will using military power is considered by the civilized world in the 21st century an abnormal act that must be rectified. The issue, however, becomes complicated with 46 years of one people ruling over another. It is further complicated and can be counterproductive when in the name of refusing normalization with the occupier one rejects all forms of cooperation between the peoples, including those who are not directly responsible for the occupation.

This has been the dilemma facing Palestinians and Israelis. Can Palestinians normalize relations with Israelis without such acts giving the false impression of acquiescence to the continuation of the rejected system of occupation? For almost five decades, Palestinians and Israelis have experienced and rejected various acts of normalization and dialogue.

Before the escalation of travel restrictions, the permit system and separation wall, Palestinians and Israelis were able to move easily from one community to the other. Yet, even back then, the issue of dialogue and normalization was a hot topic among intellectuals.

The pros and cons of Palestinian and Israeli dialogue were captured in a brilliant set of discussions triggered by “The Pitfalls of Dialogue,” an article by a Palestinian lawyer published in the mid-1980s, pre-intifada, in a local Palestinian newspaper. In the article, human rights advocate Jonathan Kuttab* argues that dialogue between occupier and occupied is asymmetrical, fails to acknowledge entrenched divisions, perpetuates the status quo, frequently replaces action and is often used by oppressors to co-opt and divide the occupied. Hebrew University professor Edy Kaufman responded to the article, arguing that difficult issues need long periods of sustained discussion, which one can regulate, and that dialogue helps build trust.