any one can aske any question it is so easy ,,but sure no one can reply it rightly ..here in the conflect all of the israili and palastinians aske and all of them reply but sure it is not the right reply ..and many times they reply by another question or aske the question and give its reply as an order to the other .and even in any talk they do the same ,,,by by by ray you just aske and reply yourselfe ..no solution in these far days salam to all

"It is necessary to separate moderates and extremists among the Palestinians, not put them all in one bag. " I would like to do that as well. Can you point me to the moderates who actually wield influence or power? I ask because other than Nusseibah, who is not a member of any government - I can't think of any important member of Palestinian society whom I can call moderate. And even Nusseibah's views are not exactly heartwarming. "There are Palestinians who are in favor of a two-state solution based approximately on the Green Line" That is fine, as long as there is compromise on Jerusalem and its holy sites as well as the neighborhoods surrounding Jerusalem. Saying "based approximately on the Green Line" is all well and good but one could argue that was the Palestinian position at Taba and as I pointed out, this position is one that does not compromise on Jewish holy sites, Jewish neighborhoods that ring Jerusalem, issues of Palestinian refugees and other concerns. It is these issues that represent the heart of the matter. " and there are Palestinians who want Israel destroyed. " Indeed. "The former must be strengthened and the latter isolated. " Okay, but who are they? Listen, the Israelis left Gaza. so where are the moderate voices shouting from Palestinian rooftops that there shouldn't be attacks from Gaza on Israel? Where and who are the Palestinian moderates? "True, most Palestinians have recently elected Hamas. But Hamas didn't always enjoy so much popular support. " They didn't enjoy the confidence of the Palestinians as a political entity. However, when they were out of power, we have polls conducted by Palestinian pollsters showing that support for suicide bombings hovered between 60% and 74%. What is the difference between supporting Fatah in the PA with a 70% approval rating for these bombings or electing Hamas? "Violence, misery and no solution in sight make masses radical and insane," There are plenty of cultures, including Judaism, where such things did not cause the type of violence we see from Palestinians. They should stop targeting civilians. And not to beat you over the head with this too much, because I believe you mean well, but when you say "no solution in sight" you ignore the very real solutions proposed in 2000 and 2001 which were rejected. "and Hamas was also viewed as less corrupt than Fatah - an internal Palestinian matter." Fair enough. "The Palestinian moderation can be revived, and Israel can contribute to this revival by seriously negotiating with moderates. The policy of non-negotiation radicalizes Palestinian moderates and brings them closer to terrorists." The policy is a direct response to two factors: one, the terror is not stopping and neither Fatah or Hamas tried to end it; and, two, what can one negotiate with people who support targeting civilians? Israel cannot negotiate with Hamas not only because it is a terror group that cannot be sanctioned, but also because it doesn't recognize Israel. It can't negotiate with Abbas because he is not in charge and, frankly, did nothing to stop terror when he was in charge. Nothing. Tell me to whom they should speak? And what should they speak about? The Road Map? The current Palestinian leadership rejects it. Taba? The former Palestinian leadership rejected it? Camp David? Not only rejected, but monstrously depicted as a false and unacceptable offer. I'll tell you what. I am very interested in peace and a solution. I believe that Taba was a horrible deal for Israel, but I probably would agree to most of what Israel offered for an end of conflict commitment from the Palestinians. You tell me who to talk to and how to get there and what we should talk about, and I will address your suggestions as seriously as I can. I wish I could be more optimistic, but what happened in 2001 and 2001 was disillusioning to put it mildly.

y the party in the USA it is not the truth of islam or about islam //the reply to the question ;;it is the truth about the evil .but sure there are many moslem worship god ,,and many of them and not from them worship the evil and i think that no, 55 is one of not moslem worship the evil ,,,,,kuran is a book you must read of all of it to know about islam ,,,it is like any one read a story and tell abut some sentences ...so how you say about a holy book ,,i did not read the torah or the bible ,but if i want to take some sentences from this and that to tell the truth of the religion ..sure it will be a big false and it will be the evil ..be what you want to be stop attaking islame ya jahel

For Ray to deny what he has previously written would be falsehood. As a result, I encourage him not to. At the same time, healthy human beings are not static. They evolve over time, and their views mature. Often times that maturation of perspective comes through soul searching and pain, or at the very least, rude awakenings. Sometimes we find that what we believed in was how we wanted things to be - and not how they really are. Romanticism can be fatal in the long run. Moving to Israel was one of the biggest catalysts for personal change in my life. My perceptions and opinions are not what they were two years ago. My romanticism took a heady blow - though I am still an ardent supporter of the Jewish enterprise in Israel. As a result, I can believe Ray's opinions have matured and changed in the four years since he wrote the article #1 has posted. I can think of several reasons over the past two or three years that his perspective might have changed. Perhaps that was how he felt then and this is how he feels now. Or - perhaps - he's simply become more pragmatic and hopes to focus not on what can be realistically achieved as opposed to the angry dreams of embitterment. I can't speak for him, and neither can any of the rest of us. Its up to him to tell us why these articles are so starkly different. The one thing I do feel certain of is that framing your own response without giving him a chance to do so himself won't shed any light on the matter. In fact, its a darned good way to extinguish what light there is. And perhaps such an answer will take meditation. Internal change often occurs implicitly, on an unconscious level. Ray, himself, may not have the answer at his fingertips. And it may take time for him to sort it out. None of us are perfect. We often speak from anger or pain. Such words are the bane of rationalism and good faith. And I have never met a man who didn't regret something he said at some point in his life. Like I said before - I disagree with almost everything Ray says - but I'm willing to assume he's writing from where he's at right now. After all, that's where I'm writing from, and where I'm at today is not where I was at three or four years ago.

Other Arabs should join him or go to their own 22 countries.

"I can think of several reasons over the past two or three years that his perspective might have changed. Perhaps that was how he felt then and this is how he feels now" And so can I. But the fact remains that instead of just coming out and saying "In 2002, I got it very wrong. I'm sorry for what I wrote back then. However, I can assure you my views have changed completely," he attempts to assassinate the messenger. "Like I said before - I disagree with almost everything Ray says - but I'm willing to assume he's writing from where he's at right now" But if he could act in a dishonest manner about what he has written previously, why should we trust what he says now? Indeed, that has been the problem with the "peace process" all along. Arabs say one thing to the world another thing to one another which they then deny, and we Jews are stupid enough to fall for it hook, line and sinker. And hence the complete disaster which was Oslo and the betrayal of Clinton and Barak at Taba. Before Israel and the Arabs can have peace the latter must elect a courageous man or woman to lead them who tells the complete truth to both sides. I will not hold my breath.

As if it not enough all the American armchair zionists telling us here in Israel how to live our lives. A bunch of American Jews who have never lived in Israel giving us their ignorant opinions based on CNN and second hand anecdotal nonsense. Now we have Ray so called Palestinian who has never lived in the region giving us his commentry and opinion also based on anecdotal nonsense and CNN. Here is the American 'Palestinian' version of the armchair zionist. sitting in Chicago pontificating on how we in the middle east should settle our problems. Ray you don't live here. You are an American. You don't have the psychological tools to understand us here in the Middle East. Hell you're a Christian. Have you any idea what the Hamas Islamic fundamentalists are going to do to your alledged Christian relations once there is a Palestinian state? Remember the phrase - be carefull what you wish for it may come true. Your dream of a Palestinian state will rapidly become a nightmare for your Christian brethren in the future Palestine.

Ray: "By the way, my dad received a Palestinian identity card in 1926 when he traveled to the US. His brothers and sisters were forced form their homes in the 1948 war." I'm a JEW and my gandmother her parents and parents parents etc... had a palestinian i.d. cards too (she and her father (born in1880 in Jerusalem) were born in Israel under the Turks.) They (my grandmothers family and her 12 uncles and aunts and their families) were expelled from the Jewish quarter of the old city of Jerusalem by the jordanians. They did not leave of their own will. my wifes family (Mother family of 10 father family of six) were expelled from Morroco and Algeria, we are the REAL "forgotten refugees" who the world has neglected! we have never been compensated by the arabs. (the state of ISRAEL paid reperations to my grandmothers family for their house) Further more your people don't want to recognize that we are refugees. years later and the Jews who were expelled from Iraq, libiya, algeria etc... were absorbed by ISRAEL... the Palestinians however, years later, still remain refugees for political reasons! no one wants to help absorb them! Not one of their own ARAB Bretheren! you should be out raged by that.

Palestinian moderates are those who envision the resolution of this conflict as a two-state solution based approximately on the Green Line. They agree with the world's consensus that the occupation that started in 1967 must eventually be traded for peace. At Camp David it was for the first time that the major final status issues were discussed and in Taba there was a first discussion of a substantial division of Jerusalem. It may require more time to find a precise solution that would be acceptable to both sides. But further negotiations are necessary to find such a solution. Arafat and Abbas were moderates, but Israel has refused to negotiate with them since 2001. True, Arafat and Abbas were unwilling or unable to crack down on terrorists and Arafat even supported them. The decimation of Palestinian security installations in Israeli attacks certainly didn't improve their capability to fight terrorism, and the whole atmosphere of violence and absence of negotiations didn't improve Arafat's or Abbas' willingness or political capability to fight terrorism. But still there is the important distinction between moderates like Arafat or Abbas and extremists like Hamas or Islamic Jihad - in their vision of a final solution to the conflict. Targetting civilians is gruesome but it would still be preferable to negotiate with people who support such gruesome acts but are moderate in their vision of a final solution to the conflict - because there is a chance to reach the final solution with them and when it is reached they will no longer support these gruesome things but will be motivated to fight the extremists who would want to undermine the implementation of the final agreement. It should also be considered that both sides in this conflict use force to further their goals, and Palestinian moderates who support or are unwilling to fight terrorists may believe this is their only possibility to use force, since their choice of targets is much more limited in practice than Israel's choice. Now that Hamas is in power there is surely less room for final status negotiations but Israel could at least convey to the Palestinians its willingness to reach a final status agreement based approximately on the Green Line, including a division of Jerusalem, and try to negotiate with Abbas. I don't know exactly what powers Abbas has but he is still a president and could present to the Palestinians an alternative to Hamas' detrimental position, an alternative that would resolve the conflict and end their hardships. Thus a social pressure could be generated that would make Hamas change or lose public support.

I'm not really into the "Kate Zeitgeist." You sit around in London taking shots at a columnist in Chicago over something he about a country neither of you live and work in four years ago. In the society I am accustomed to we don't expect people to walk around prefacing everything they say with a litany of previous related statements or past sins. Not only is it considered good manners, but its a remarkable time saver as well. Its also considered good form not to remind people of their sins when they are attempting to turn over a new leaf. Nor have I seen many columnists who preface many of their pieces with statements like "previously I wrote" or politically correct qualifiers intended to soften the blow or assauge the feelings of those they may have offended in the past. The social order you are proposing would turn the world into an emasculated, politcally correct, milquetoast caricature of an alcoholics anonymous meeting geared for illiberal flings of the tongue: "Hello, I'm Ray, and four years ago I said something offensive." "Hi Ray!" You're upset about something he wrote four years ago so now he has to come crawling on hands and knees and grovell at your feet asking forgiveness before he's allowed to write something in a different spirit? What stuff! What nonsense! Do I find Ray's article you linked to offensive? Sort of, if he actually wrote it. He implies your link is BS. There's no way for me to know because your both just pixels on a screen. But let's assume he did write it, which seems to be the case. So what? He said some wholly emotional and ugly things. Now, four years later he's making an effort to change his tone. Do I castigate him or encourage him? And then you have the gall to moan about "trust" and make a mountain out of a molehill. He writes opinion pieces for God's sake. They're not factual. They're not objective. They're wholly subjective. Opinions are worth what you pay for them. These articles can be summed up as "Ray pontificates on the world as he sees it... tune in next week!" (kind of like talkbacks, eh?). Whether Ray feels bad about what he wrote four years ago or not is between him and God. I do not ask for or want an apology insofar as he is being as frank now as he was then. It would be interesting to understand what brought him from that point to where he is now - but that's an article in of itself - and, personally, I'd rather not watch Ray pick lint out of his navel in a fit of egotistical post-modern self-examination. And thank God he didn't muddle it down and draw it out by prefacing it with a recap of past articles, an apology, or worst a lengthy explanation. That kind of psychological nudity is an unmanly self-indulgence of worst sort. And character assassination? He said what you posted was BS - that it was a lie. There was no ad hominem attack, just a challenge to your source. Validate your source or shut up. That's the name of the game. It should be easy enough to do. Otherwise, don't play "poor Kate." And even so, do I care? No. I work in Jerusalem and live northwards in a town that's on Olmert's chopping block. Nothing you or Ray duel about from across the seas will affect the outcome of this conflict - or whether my home is destroyed. After all - when the chips are down - neither of you live here: You're a Brit and Ray's an American.

evry thing may changed even the hearts .it is not the place let the person changed ..it is a complicated systems and it is not tight to time or others may be suffering change me to the opposit to another one has the same suffering ,,i mean the responce of each one will differ while the event is the same ,,salam david in jerusalem

it is a story of the eagle and the fly ,,in the morning the eagle saw a pigon .he said no i like a bigger to hunt ,at afternoon he saw a bird ..he said no no i want a bigger to eat ,,at sun set he was so hungry ,looking all the sides he did not see any ,,and lastly he said ah ah if i have a fly only a fly //so no negetotiation with arafat ,,,abou mazen did not fight the terror ,,hamass is a terror organisation ,,and do you thing that the sun will not reach its set

Itis an outright lie, or, to be less critical, a distrortion. Have I criticized Israel. ABSOLUTELY. Have I challenged Israeli policy? ABSOLUTELY. Have I even said things that crossed the line. ABSOLUTELY? hasn't everyone including on htis web site? Have I consistently supported compromise based on fairness. ALWAYS. have I consistently opposed ALL FORMS OF VIOLENCE, without missing a beat. As I have written repeatedly (and "Kate" ignores it because the truth is not what she is after, just promoting hatred and more lies), I momentarily crossed the line in anger against Ariel Sharon, a vicious killer in my views. And my views have been driven by emotion like all. But, since the beginning I have always been consistent to support: rejection of violence; recognition of Israel and palestine as two-states together; compromise on both sides. These are facts that only the most vile would ignore. Kate and her ilk have constantly take one emotional outburst out of context and distorted it to fit their viciousness so the4y con justify continued violence against palestinians and reject compromise efforts always. I will bet Kate has written that she supports the destruction of Palestine. And I will bet that most of the writers here have said the same thing, destroy Palestine (have Palesitnians live in Jordan, merge into the Arab World, blah, blah, blah). Whatever. Look past the hatred, people. I think it is Israel that faces an uncertain future if this conflict is not resolved. Just because Palestinians are victims does not mean they will lose in a heated conflict. Why should either side take the chance? Go to my web site and read what I have written and said not just as a writer but also as the President of the Palestinian American Congres -- and I was elected overwhelming on my support of peace AND CONSISTENT DENUNCIATION OF HAMAS AND SUICIDEE BOMBINGS, which is more than ost of you can say about yourselves. So, I'm flushing Kate at this point, but to set the record satraight -- as I continue to do but the issue is not truth for many here, but rather political points. Ray Hanania

Here's the link to the column which was distributed by my syndication to newspapers around the world in February 2003. http://paljew.blogspot.com/2006/07/use-of-nazi-and-hitler-analogies.html The point also is that no matter what I say, people like Kate are not interested in the truth. It's right in front of their noses. We know truth is not what she and others like her wants. And as for not living in Palestine or Israel, the problem is the Israelis won't let me live there. Are you saying David that I can now live in West Jerusalem? Let me know when we can go to the immigration office together. :) Ray Hanania www.hanania.com

I'm sorry, this discussion is off track. I am asking you who the moderates are. You come back to me with Arafat as a moderate. I cannot think of a much more absurd comment. Arafat, the moderate, was the head of not only the PA but also of Fatah. Fatah is responsible for over 70% of the attacks on Israelis - more than all of the other Palestinian groups put together. Fatah uses suicide bombings and snipings as tools in their war chest against Israeli civilians. He was far from moderate and Abbas is no different. Abbas had the ability to stop terror and he didn't even try. He didn't even try! Sure, compared to Hamas, we can call him "moderate," but I am speaking about real moderation, not a means to further the battle plan. I will continue to visit this discussion to see whether you have any serious suggestions about moderates, particularly those who might wield some power. Please note that as I write, Israel is in Gaza because of attacks on Israel by Palestinians groups, including Hamas, that Abbas did not stop and did not try to stop.

"Please note that as I write, Israel is in Gaza because of attacks on Israel by Palestinians groups, including Hamas, that Abbas did not stop and did not try to stop." And Israel contributed to this situation by not negotiating with him to resolve the conflict and by conveying the message that the territorial solution in the West Bank will not be based approximately on the Green Line. Abbas did try to stop terrorism, although only by negotiating with the terrorist groups. I gave my definition of Palestinian moderates and explained why it would be better to negotiate with them a final solution to the conflict even if they support terrorism or are unwilling to fight it. A final solution would of course demand that they crack down on the terrorists but then they would be much more motivated to do so, because violence against Israel would change from what appeared to be a useful tool into an obvious impediment to the overall implementation of the final agreement. Instead of snubbing Arafat and Abbas it could have been more productive to negotiate with them (while continuing military operations against terrorists, of course). And Arafat might have stopped supporting terrorist attacks if he saw there was a chance to resolve the conflict through negotiations, but by electing Ariel Sharon Israelis practically destroyed such a chance.

now we see how irrational and how mr. "perspective" is, how he has lost touch with reality... just ignore him he has nothing to offer except blind "idealism", which does not help in the Real World.

Israel did negotiate with Arafat. In fact, it offered him a state. For the first time since 1947, the Palestinians had a chance at their first state ever. Not only did he not negotiate in good faith, he didn't negotiate at all at Camp David and very little at Taba. Then, he started a war. It is absurd that you would call this man who basically invented plane hijackings a moderate. If there is a single person responsible for Palestinian beliefs with regards to making war on Israel and Israeli civilians, it is Arafat. His hands are so bloody the ground around his grave is squishy from all the fluid. I have no idea why you keep saying the Israeli offer was not based on the Green Line. Even at Camp David, they offered 100% of Gaza and 90% of the West Bank. At Taba it became 97%. That's not close enough for you? Even if it isn't, there is no justification for war or suicide bombings that ensued. Same goes for cracking down on terrorists. According to you, Israel should reward terrorists by giving in to their terrorism. After they give in, you tell us, the terrorists will listen and everybody can talk in good faith. Does that sound logical to you? Or do you suppose that the terrorists whose platforms vow the destruction of Israel will simply assume they've won the battle and then try again? Look at Gaza. Israel pulled out unilaterally, of its own accord and timetable. It was neither victory nor loss, merely pragmatism. How did the terrorist group, Hamas, translate this event? As a victory for violence. Then they were elected as the new government and the Qassems have never stopped being launched. Lesson learned? Every time you give an inch, you pay with more violence later. Every time you put together a peace offer, you end up getting a war (this is true of 2000, 1947 and 1937) from the Palestinians. As for your complaint about Sharon being elected, bear in mind that it was Arafat's behavior at Camp David, Taba and the war he started in 2000 that completely undermined Barak and the Israeli Center Left and Left. Israelis shifted to the Right and Center Right in huge numbers because Arafat and his PA destroyed any credibility those advocating peace and a two state solution had. This is not the first time Arafat watched these things happen. Peres lost to Netanyahu because of 3 well timed suicide bombings just prior to the elections, undermining his peaceful positions and advocacy for Oslo. It almost makes you think the Palestinians thought their cause benefits from having Right wing Israeli governments in place. Hmmmm...Better for propaganda, that's for sure.

there is one fact in this conflect ...what you said about them the terrorists to all palastinians are the men define palastin //in this fact may the conflect has a solution ...but as the israili say this is a terror and that a terror ..and israil defend its citizens ..no solution ..as the palastinians defends their citizens in any means and they are willing for negotiation if israil want that ,,but if israil will wait for moderat as it explain the moderation that to obey what israil order ....i think israil will not find this man to obey the master order ..this is the fact ,,it is not illusion

Ok, you don't have to call Arafat a moderate, but he was one of those with whom Israel could make a deal, a final agreement about a two-state solution. Sure, he made serious mistakes by inflaming violence and not negotiating properly. But it doesn't appear that the intifada was completely under his control. There are extremist forces not under Arafat's control that always sought to undermine the peace process. Back in the 1990s it couldn't have been in Arafat's interest to launch suicide bombings before Israeli elections and thereby ensuring Peres' failure. I understand that a violent atmosphere radicalizes masses, so I am not surprised about Israeli public's shift to the right when there is Palestinian violence and suicide bombings. The problem is that right-wing radicalism doesn't solve the problem; rather, with its agenda opposing a two-state solution based approximately on the Green Line, it weakens those Palestinians with whom Israel could make a deal and strengthens those with whom Israel can't. "I have no idea why you keep saying the Israeli offer was not based on the Green Line. Even at Camp David, they offered 100% of Gaza and 90% of the West Bank. At Taba it became 97%. That's not close enough for you?" The Taba offer was based approximately on the Green Line. But I could also ask a similar question: at Taba Palestinians offered Israel 3% of West Bank (according to the Moratinos paper), was that not close enough for you? Wouldn't it be worthwhile to try to finish the work started at Taba and thus resolve this old conflict? "Same goes for cracking down on terrorists. According to you, Israel should reward terrorists by giving in to their terrorism." First, I said that anti-terrorism operations should go along with negotiations. And a two-state solution would not be a reward for the terrorists who seek Israel's destruction. Quite the opposite, it would be their defeat and the Palestinian government who clinched the deal with Israel as well as Palestinian public would turn against these extremists. They always tried to prevent such a solution. For THEM it is preferable when Israel is led by the likes of Sharon or Netanyahu, rather than Barak or Peres. Lessons learned? Partial measures are worth little. Partial agreements, partial disengagements without the resolution of the major issues will leave moderate Palestinians doubting and not very willing to take stronger action against extremists. Then an extremist blows himself up and the partial progress blows up with him. It seems that only a final peace agreement will defeat those who seek Israel's destruction and bring peace. But it will require patient final status negotiations with Palestinians who want a two-state solution.

When it comes to his vision of the final solution and his adherence to the land for peace principle recognized by the international community, Arafat was more moderate than Sharon.

I'll ignore the fact that a man who refused to compromise on anything according to you, WP, is more moderate than a man who evacuated Gaza of Jews. Instead, let's focus on your recurring theme: Israel should negotiate with moderate Palestinians who want a two state solution while continuing with their "anti-terror" activities. Again, I ask, which moderates have the power to decide anything? The current government is a terror organization. Their methods are no different than the other major Palestinian political group, Fatah. Between them, they control the PM and Presidential posts in the PA. They also control the streets and the security services. So who is Israel supposed to talk to? Who are the moderates? Is there such a party? Are there names you can provide? The second issue is what to discuss with these moderates that we so desperately need to find. I ask you again, why should Israel revert to a very generous offer that was based ON TRUST which was rejected by the Palestinians as they were busy starting a war? Why would Israel reward this violence in any way? When you start a war, there are consequences and this should be doubly true in the event you start a war after a generous peace offer (or even after an ungenerous peace offer). But this was a generous offer; the Palestinians actually saw an Israeli map that said "Palestine" on it - something that would have come into being for the first time in history. Even if you could convince somebody that there are moderates among the Palestinians who seek a true two state solution (not that muddled obfuscation in the Prisoners' document) and even if they would be given authority to negotiate, the key issues at Taba were not compromised upon at Taba by the Palestinians. Even that 2.34% of the West Bank the Palestinians agreed the Israelis would keep in exchange for land within Israel's Green Line, was drawn on the map specifically to break up the Jewish blocs around Jerusalem. Let me ask you another simple question: if you intend to achieve "end of conflict" and you intend to honor your committment to this peace, why would you bother to tamper with the blocs? After all, for a mere additional 0.86% of the West Bank, you could have eternal peace with Israel, and chances are you could get something significant for that 0.86%, since the blocs are important to Israel and would be incorporated into its borders which you are committing never to attack again. The answer, I'm afraid, is negative all around. For the Israelis, it means their peace "partner" has other intentions in the long run. For the Palestinians it means they get to continue with the unhappy status quo. For you it means that you cannot point to this as a breakthrough with respect to moderate Palestinian views. For me it means that my hopes for peace some time soon are essentially destroyed. Go back to the Moratinos document. Go back to the Clinton parameters. Consider that Israel agreed to those parameters and made a generous effort to achieve peace and consider that even as they were talking with the Palestinians, the Palestinians had already put into place a war plan that had been in the works months prior to Camp David (according to their own PA ministers). As I've written above, fundamental changes need to take place among the Palestinians. Hopefully sooner than later.

"Again, I ask, which moderates have the power to decide anything?" Well, now that Hamas is in power Israel could at least negotiate with Abbas. If Abbas strikes a final agreement with Israel and Hamas rejects it he may still present it to Palestinians in a referendum. And Palestinians will see the choice between a two-state solution based approximately on the Green Line and the continuation of their misery under Hamas. "I ask you again, why should Israel revert to a very generous offer that was based ON TRUST which was rejected by the Palestinians as they were busy starting a war?" I wouldn't say that Israel's offer at Camp David was generous in the context of the land-for-peace principle and the importance of East Jerusalem for Palestinians, and I'm not surprised Arafat rejected it. Of course, he then made a grave mistake by supporting violence and Islamist terrorists did their own work and I understand it eroded Israel's trust in him. But I suppose HIS trust in Israel had been undermined already in the Oslo period, when Israel kept expanding settlements and declaring that Jerusalem would never be divided. What you thought was a generous offer may have been the last straw for him. "Why would Israel reward this violence in any way?" What you think of as a reward for violence may have resolved the conflict. Israel could have negotiated with Arafat and at the same time use military means against Palestinian violence. Actually, that's what Israel did until Taba, where Israel agreed for the first time on a solution based approximately on the Green Line. But then came Sharon with his no negotiation policy and no desire to resolve the conflict, which brought about an unprecedented wave of suicide bombings and skyrocketed Hamas to the heights of unprecedented popularity. And by the way, I guess Palestinians didn't feel like rewarding Israeli violence either, the violence that had the form of settlement expansion even during the Oslo period. "Let me ask you another simple question: if you intend to achieve "end of conflict" and you intend to honor your committment to this peace, why would you bother to tamper with the blocs?" The question may not be as simple as it sounds. For example, according to an article by Akiva Eldar, Palestinians were originally ready to agree to the annexation of Maaleh Adumim and Givat Zeev by Israel but at Taba they rejected it because they realized that Israel intended to annex them with a large tract of land between them, which is inhabited by a lot of Palestinians. More negotiations are needed to resolve such problems.

"If Abbas strikes a final agreement with Israel and Hamas rejects it he may still present it to Palestinians in a referendum." Why should they negotiate anything with a person who obviously wields no power? He can't control Qassems, he can't control Hamas, he can't control kidnappings. You want Israel to negotiate with him even though he is powerless and when he was in power did nothing to stop the terrorists. What can he offer the Israelis? How can he offer more than Arafat did? Also, the referendum is regarding the Prisoners' document which calls for two Palestinian states side by side. "I wouldn't say that Israel's offer at Camp David was generous in the context of the land-for-peace principle and the importance of East Jerusalem for Palestinians" Offered a state, 100% of Gaza, 90% of West Bank, neighborhoods in Jerusalem, sovereignty over holy sites...I guess generous is in the eye of the beholder. It was enough for negotiation in good faith. The Palestinians did not seek negotiation and then sought war. "and I'm not surprised Arafat rejected it. Of course, he then made a grave mistake by supporting violence " Arafat sponsored the violence. "and Islamist terrorists did their own work and I understand it eroded Israel's trust in him." It was Fatah, a nationalist organization, not a religious one, that has committed most attacks in this war. "But I suppose HIS trust in Israel had been undermined already in the Oslo period, when Israel kept expanding settlements and declaring that Jerusalem would never be divided. " Israel offered to remove most settlements and to divide Jerusalem. The Palestinians were looking at a serious offer and should have negotiated, not launched a war. "Israel could have negotiated with Arafat and at the same time use military means against Palestinian violence. Actually, that's what Israel did until Taba, where Israel agreed for the first time on a solution based approximately on the Green Line." Correct. And as noted, the Palestinians refused to budge on key issues necessary for compromise. "But then came Sharon with his no negotiation policy and no desire to resolve the conflict, which brought about an unprecedented wave of suicide bombings and skyrocketed Hamas to the heights of unprecedented popularity. " Um, twisted history there. The Palestinian war had already been going for two thirds of a year by the time Sharon came into power. These attacks included suicide bombings and snipings against Israelis. Sharon, in fact, did refuse to negotiate under fire - correctly - but did not re-enter Areas A, where 98% of the Palestinians were under PA rule, until April 2002 after the Palestinians murdered 128 civilians in suicide bombings the month before (plus a few hundred maimed and injured). Don't blame Sharon, blame the Palestinians war-makers. "And by the way, I guess Palestinians didn't feel like rewarding Israeli violence either, the violence that had the form of settlement expansion even during the Oslo period. " We have a different understanding of violence. Sorry. "according to an article by Akiva Eldar, Palestinians were originally ready to agree to the annexation of Maaleh Adumim and Givat Zeev by Israel but at Taba they rejected it because they realized that Israel intended to annex them with a large tract of land between them, which is inhabited by a lot of Palestinians." There are no Palestinians there. That area is where Israel has been planning to build the E-1neighborhood. What the Palestinians were counting on was the two villages mentioned by Moratinos would continue to expand and eventually join up. This would cut Maaleh Edumim off from Israel and. In other words, this small area, worth less than 1% of the West Bank was not small enough to leave with Israel. You still haven't addressed the blocs question.

peace-salaam-shalom. its as simple as that. Nothing more, just that. get rid of Hamas in the PA and lebanon get rid of hezbollah and all these differences between us can be worked out for sure Kol Ha'kavod

The real battle in the Middle East is between leftist self-hating Israelis, like you, Secular, and righteous Torah Jews, like me. If you didn't notice, we are forced back to Gaza and forced back to Libanon by your beloved palestinists. When will you say: "Sorry, I was wrong"? See: jewishyisrael.org, jewisyisrael.com Read http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3273357,00.html Andras Bereny Kfar Tapuah Shomron 44829 Israel

"Why should they negotiate anything with a person who obviously wields no power?" First, what can they lose? Implementation of the final status solution would need to be reciprocal, so it wouldn't be implemented until there is a Palestinian partner that has the necessary power to fulfill his obligations under the agreement. When such a partner does emerge, there might need to be additional negotiations about some minor issues but the deal reached between Israel and Abbas would be the basis. And second, the final status solution would show Palestinians a reasonable alternative to fighting, which could facilitate a change in the Palestinian public and generate pressure on Hamas to change itself or make Hamas lose public support. "We have a different understanding of violence. Sorry." That's why it would help to see the problem from the other side as well. I bet that if Palestinians brought engineering equipment and started building a settlement somewhere in Israel, Israelis would regard it as a violent act. Especially if the Palestinians used weapons against those who would try to prevent the building of the settlement. "There are no Palestinians there. That area is where Israel has been planning to build the E-1neighborhood. What the Palestinians were counting on was the two villages mentioned by Moratinos would continue to expand and eventually join up. This would cut Maaleh Edumim off from Israel and. In other words, this small area, worth less than 1% of the West Bank was not small enough to leave with Israel. You still haven't addressed the blocs question." Why would Israel want to complicate the situation by building a large new neighborhood/settlement? Palestinian negotiators were reportedly ready to accept Israel's annexation of Maale Adumim, so wouldn't it be enough just to have a passage connecting Maale Adumim with Israel? I don't know which parts of settlement blocs Palestinians didn't want to give Israel at Taba. What about the solution suggested by Geneva Accord?

If the Palestinian Arabs would stop trying to kill the Israelis the violence would end. Israel does not initiate the violence.

WD says, "First, what can they lose? Implementation of the final status solution would need to be reciprocal, so it wouldn't be implemented until there is a Palestinian partner that has the necessary power to fulfill his obligations under the agreement. When such a partner does emerge, there might need to be additional negotiations about some minor issues but the deal reached between Israel and Abbas would be the basis. And second, the final status solution would show Palestinians a reasonable alternative to fighting, which could facilitate a change in the Palestinian public and generate pressure on Hamas to change itself or make Hamas lose public support." I disagree. Every time you negotiate, you reveal your cards. Prior to Camp David, the Palestinians had no idea Israel would consider dividing Jerusalem. By the time they got to Taba, it was a given that a divided Jerusalem would be on the table. Negotiating with partners who don't mean to achieve a true compromise, or who don't have the ability to deliver, means giving up options and information that needs to be held until the conclusion of negotiation where you deliver what is literally your final offer. In 2000 and 2001, the Palestinians received a great gift in that they did not give up very much but gained a clear knowledge of what the Israelis were willing to give up. This was subsequently reflected in the Geneva Accords. Those accords, by the way, are overly generous to the Palestinians, particularly because they turn 194 into part of the deal. Israel should not agree to 194 unless the wording of the deal is clear that there is no return of UNWRA-labeled "refugees" to Israel. Second, it would seem correct to assume that Palestinians would have something to look forward to if they knew there was peace and negotiations on the table. This is logical. Unfortunately, logic falls by the wayside in this conflict a little too often. Israel's offers in 2000 and 2001 were generous. Even if you reject the premise that they were generous, they were concrete and offered many positive developments that I believe surprised the Palestinian leadership. What did this leadership do? It continued to educate against Israel. It continued to go around the world with their anti-Israel propaganda. They launched a war after vilifying both Barak and Sharon. They launched a massive PR campaign to claim that Israel's offers were insubstantial. In other words, the Palestinian leadership ended up doing the opposite of what they should have done and what you posit as the natural outcome of negotiations. This is why I keep saying they need to focus on changing their public's views and fundamentally change their perception of this conflict and its outcome. Let's stop hearing about war and destroying Israel and start hearing about a two state solution, compromise and peace. When that day comes, perhaps we'll have a real opportunity to achieve peace. And today, as I write, it seems we are at war.