The situation in our part of the Middle East doesn’t appear to make much sense at first glance. Israel has declared that it supports the establishment of two states for two peoples — which includes a Palestinian state. The Palestinians say they want a state. So why do two seemingly identical positions not lead to the expected outcome? The answer is simple — both sides hold opposing views on the means to reach this goal.

Israel believes that a Palestinian state should be achieved as the result of a comprehensive and genuine peace process. Negotiations remain the only means to reach agreement on the complicated issues that surround the establishment of a new state.

However the Palestinian Authority (PA) is attempting to bypass talks and create a state without making peace with Israel. This is the motivation behind their refusal to participate in serious negotiations for nearly three years, as well as their decision to turn to the United Nations for recognition.

There is an unbridgeable gap between a state with peace and a state without peace. The future of the relationship between Israel and the Palestinians lies in that difference. Will the Palestinians have a country from which they launch further attacks on Israel or will they build a country which will live in peaceful co-existence with their neighbor?

Instead of negotiating, the Palestinians are assailing Israel with diplomatic warfare. They have orchestrated a recognition bid at the U.N., in direct violation of the Oslo Accords the PA signed with Israel which specifically forbid unilateral action to change the status of the West Bank and Gaza.

It has become increasingly clear that the PA is not very interested in peace negotiations. This unfortunate turn of events is demonstrated by the ever growing list of preconditions the Palestinians have set for the resumption of negotiations.

The first precondition laid out by the PA was an end to settlement activity. They then proceeded to ignore the 10-month moratorium on West Bank building initiated by Israel, deciding to negotiate only after nine and a half months had passed. After six hours of talks, they abandoned negotiations once again. Then they demanded that before talks begin, Israel must surrender to their demands and recognize the 1949 cease-fire lines (erroneously referred to as the ’67 borders) as the borders of a future Palestinian state. Now there are press reports that a third precondition is on its way — a release of convicted Palestinian terrorists from Israeli jails.

In the meantime, the Palestinians are attempting to portray settlements as the true obstacle to peace. Yet the Palestinians were waging war for decades before there was a single settlement in the West Bank, and as one wag recently noted, the PLO (the father of the PA) is an “organization created in 1964 to end the 1967 occupation.”

And while the Palestinian Authority is prosecuting diplomatic warfare, the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip is engaged in real warfare — firing missile after missile at the civilians of southern Israel.

Israel is facing two Palestinian entities — one that strikes with violence, the other with diplomatic papers; one that uses Grad missiles, the other political plots.

The international community should clarify to the Palestinian Authority that it cannot bypass peace talks and persuade it finally to return to the negotiating table. Bypasses may work for heart attacks and roads, but they cannot bring peace and security.