The deep-rooted Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been a major source of destabilization in the Middle East for some three-quarters of a century. Whereas other long-standing conflicts around the world have been brought to a close, this struggle (both in and of itself and within its wider Arab-Israeli dimension) remains a perennial tinderbox. This is particularly true given the unsettling realities of the region in which the conflict exists. Consequently, a certain sense of urgency for finding a permanent political settlement can be discerned both within the region and outside it. still, the search for a solution has yielded progress only on an interim arrangement (the Gaza-Jericho autonomy accord signed by Israel and the PLO September 13, 1993). To be workable, a political settlement must break new ground by conceptualizing the problem in terms which transcend the traditional, emotion-laden and myopic rhetoric commonly used by both sides. This research is an attempt to contribute to a fresh, far-reaching understanding of the requisites for a secure Israeli-Palestinian peace and, on this basis, to evaluate the alternative scenarios for the ultimate disposition of the Israeli-administered West Bank and Gaza Strip. To that end, the fundamental question is which of these alternatives would go furthest in satisfying the vital interests of both parties so that a permanent settlement of the disputed territories might at last be implemented. In developing a conceptual framework for evaluating potential solutions, this research incorporates a comprehensive definition of "national security" juxtaposed with a concept related to American-Soviet detente: common security. National security means protection against all major perils to a state's security, not merely military threats. Common security is a mutual commitment to joint survival. It is based on a recognition that because of an increasingly interdependent world, states can no longer achieve security unilaterally but rather only through the creation of positive-sum ...