The overall question of the evening was the following: What would the best Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement look like? To begin with, two speakers from different sides of the debate made some opening remarks. On the Palestinian side was Ahmad Khalidi, part of the Palestinian negotiating team during the Washington talks and Senior Associate Member of St Anthonys College, Oxford. For the Israeli side we had Moty Cristal, negotiator at Camp David for Israeli government, now based at LSE.

Listening to the speakers a number of things struck me:

• Past and present `peace processes' were criticised for being too `incremental.' This feature is characterised by gradually moving forward in small steps, putting off the final settlement to a future time when more trust has been built up (if that ever happens). Against that was the idea of the `end game' - if parties know what they are aiming for, what is the expected outcome of the negotiations, then they can move forward more decisively and with less uncertainty as to the expectations of the other side.
• Complementing this idea was the observation that leaving negotiations to leaders is a futile practice. Summit-style negotiations are effective only if they are tying up loose ends between two parties who have a broad based consensus behind them. In other words until there is popular support for a particular settlement, we cannot expect leaders to make breakthroughs on major sticking points.
• The method of negotitation at summits is important. In particular consideration should be given to building up `respect' between the two sides as opposed to `trust'. The emphasis has traditionally been on the latter and has largely failed. One idea that came out later in the evening was that if a third party could be found which both parties trusted then they could act as a `trust' bank - the conflicting groups make promises to this third party rather than to each other and are then accountable to this third party. Distrust between the two groups is then less of an issue and obligations cannot be avoided by besmirching the other group.

The evening really came into its own however when the talks stopped! At this point people gathered in groups to give their perspectives on what they'd heard, and on the general question of the evening. The strength of the discussions lay in the diversity of the people taking part - many had family living on one side or the other of the separation wall and many had suffered as a result of the conflict. The chance to share perspectives in this context was very valuable.

In fact experience in the groups reinforced an impression created by the speakers, namely that when the Israel/ Palestine conflict is removed from the realm of power politics and placed in the context of normal people speaking face to face, it becomes much more tractable. Deep disagreements on important issues remained, but these disagreements occurred largely in a rhetoric-free landscape and with a willingness to engage as positively as possible.

There is hope then. We cannot leave breakthroughs to leaders, this much is clear, but we can be hopeful that understanding and respect CAN be created on a grassroots level. The Cambridge dialogues are set to continue in Easter term. Bring it on.