Palestinian children run along the seashore at a beach in the Gaza Strip. (Hatem Omar, Maan Images)

The recent meeting between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in the West Bank town of Jericho joined the influx of diplomatic efforts aimed at advancing the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians.

Statesmen from the West, Israel, and the US are tying these efforts to the "window of opportunity" that presented itself with the violent Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip this past June. According to them, since Arafat's demise there has not been such a realistic opportunity to advance a significant diplomatic maneuver between Israel and the Palestinians.

They perceive the continuation of Hamas rule in the Gaza Strip as a convenient situation for Israel, which has long wished to rid itself of the Gaza burden.

The first to point to this "window of opportunity" was US President George W. Bush, himself, who, last month, announced his intentions to convene an international conference in the fall, with the aim of advancing the peace process. In parallel, the Israeli prime minister suggested consolidating an "agreement of principles" for a final-status agreement.

In between, the foreign ministers of Egypt and Jordan arrived in Israel and proposed the Arab peace initiative to all interested parties as an outline for making progress.

In his meetings in Jerusalem and Ramallah, Tony Blair, the Quartet's envoy to the Middle East, asked to hear new ideas for advancing the diplomatic process, and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice obtained the consent of the relevant parties to participate in the peace conference in America.

But the main Achilles heel inherent in these recent moves is the assumption that a diplomatic agreement over the future of the West Bank with Abbas and the Salam Fayyad government can be advanced while disregarding developments in the Gaza Strip, which, for the time being, will remain under Hamas control.

Related stories The Middle East peace process scam Beyond the concrete wall Not only territory, but viability A visit to the jungle Israel's settlement project compromises Palestinian state

This assumption contradicts the signed agreements between Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organization, according to which the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are a single legislative, diplomatic, and political entity.

Any "out-of-the-box thinking" must be welcomed with regards to the process that had indeed collapsed, but by the same token, we should ponder the working assumption on which the revival of the peace process is now being based.

Can the West Bank and the Gaza Strip really be divided? Should a diplomatic agreement with a Palestinian leadership that has limited support be advanced, while demonstratively ignoring the Hamas movement, whose broad public support led to its victory in the last elections?

There is no doubt that, over the years, a new reality has emerged in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip; nonetheless, the national and political perception shared by the Palestinian public negates this separation.

Also, the chances that Israeli gestures, and the funneling of funds to the West Bank while "drying up" Gaza would lead to a conscious reform that would see the Palestinians sufficing with a "mini state," run by a non-elected government in part of the West Bank, is pretty slim.

What could and should be done in the current situation? Abandon the assumption that developments in the West Bank and Gaza Strip can be separated. Encourage the recently-started dialogue between Fatah and Hamas representatives with the aim of ameliorating the deep rift between the two major movements. Prompt Abbas to keep his pledges, and call for fresh elections for the Palestinian Legislative Council and for the presidency in the near future.

Israel and the US should announce that they would view any elected leadership - interested in an agreement and dialogue with them - as a legitimate partner. There are groups who are interested in dialogue with Israel among Fatah and Hamas ranks alike.

In addition, an agreement should be reached with the elected Palestinian leadership calling for: mutual cessation of hostile acts, the expansion of free movement, the earmarking of resources for rehabilitation of commerce and services, and the creation of employment.

The search for a consensual diplomatic horizon within the framework of an international conference can continue; however, reaching agreements on issues noted here with an elected Palestinian leadership and with international backing is the most urgent need.

Focusing on such an outline and guarantees for implementation are likely to significantly enhance the unbearable way of life endured by millions of Israelis and Palestinians, and to neutralize the fear of further escalation of violence.

Yoram Meital is the Chairperson of the Chaim Herzog Center for Middle East Studies & Diplomacy at Ben-Gurion University.

This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org.