National unity has never been a synonym for unanimity or a monolithic political culture. Nor is it a tedious repetition of slogans etched in stone. It has become abundantly clear also that a constant reactive negative response to the initiatives of others does not constitute a political platform. Now that the coming challenges posited by final status issues and negotiations have superseded the traditional pro s and con s of the debate over Oslo and the interim phase, most factions are returning to the fold in search for a role. This is neither capitulation nor cooption, but a recognition of the national and historical dimensions of the issues at stake.
Participation is neither a gift nor a concession.
It is a national responsibility. However, the time has come to commit to a hard and candid assessment of the manner of participation, the discourse involved, and the mechanisms of a sustained and productive dialogue. The substance of the dialogue must also undergo a qualitative shift along with the mindsets and attitudes that had persistently ignored developments and relationships emanating from an interactive and ongoing peace process, in addition to contemporary global realities and imperatives. The dialogue itself should lead to an informed and comprehensive decision-making system capable of reflecting a viable and operative national consensus and of maintaining the confidence and support of the public. Political policy and decisions are not made in a vacuum or within the rarified atmosphere of closed rooms.