The proposed conceptual framework for research on punitiveness is a three-level model. One level pertains to the fairness of the procedure for determining guilt/innocence and sentencing. The model's second level involves the procedure's outcome, which consists of both sanctions against the offender and compensation/remedies for victims of the crime at issue. The model's third level concerns purpose, i.e., what is to be achieved by the punishment. The author advocates using this model in expanding research on punitiveness to include macro-conflicts, i.e., conflicts that involve harmful and violent disputes between collectives that create victims on both sides of the conflict. This was the case in the Al-Aqsa Intifada that victimized both Israelis and Palestinians on opposite sides of the conflict. In applying the three-level model, surveyed victims were asked about their attitudes toward the procedural concepts of criminal prosecution and truth commissions. Both victim groups favored prosecution over a truth commission procedure. At the outcome level, respondents were asked about punishment for offenders and compensation/reparation for victims. Stronger support for punishment of offenders was found among Israeli victims. At the third level of the model, victims were questioned about the intended purposes of taking actions against offenders. Although "taking revenge" was the purpose of sanctions for most victims, with Palestinians slightly more prevalent with this opinion (45.5 percent to 34.2 percent), approximately one-third of all victims believed the purpose of sanctions is to remove barriers to coexistence between Palestinians and Israelis. 5 figures and 75 references