Ramallah- The mood here among Palestinians has been quite optimistic even before the Bush administration succeeded in ‘convincing’ the Israelis to accept the quartet’s road map for peace in the Middle East. This high expectation is worrisome and potentially dangerous.

The downfall of the Saddam Hussein regime, the appointment of an empowered Palestinian prime minister and the repeated promises of statehood by President Bush, Prime Minister Blair have partially contributed to this optimism.

But for most Palestinians more than two years of death, destruction, travel restrictions and humiliation have made them clutch on straws.

Some might argue that a realistic look at the key political players gives little hope. Few claim the existence of a De Gaul-like leader in Israel who can look far ahead for his people and the people of the region. The Palestinian prime minister doesn’t have the charisma or patriotic capital to pull off a peace deal. Ironically, the Israelis and Americans who have sidelined Arafat, might need him to help sell a compromise deal.

Such high expectations are potentially dangerous because they threaten to produce a major let down if the current road map fails to lead to the desired and stated goals. A look back at the major popular uprisings in the Palestinian community and one can easily point to a combination of pent up anger as a result of restrictions and a let down after hopes of political resolution.

Regional leaders need to decide firmly to move ahead without turning back, cooperate amongst themselves and reduce their grip on land ideologies. International leaders must work extra hard and refuse to take no for an answer in order to make sure that this unique opportunity is not lost.

The agreement by Palestinians and Israelis on the Road map is a unique opportunity that must not be lost. Below are some key elements to avoid blowing this chance for peace:

No turning back: Palestinian and Israeli leaders have a tendency to take one step forward hesitate then take two backward. No one can afford such erratic behavior. Lives will be lost, hatred will increase and yet more obstacles will be created. There must be no turning back on the goal of a Palestinian state, an end to violence and a reversal of settlement expansion. Playing word games as the Israeli government did by barely accepting certain parts of the Road Map, while overwhelming voting against one item in the plan- Palestinian refugee- is a negation to the package deal nature of the road map.

Cooperation and not confrontation is the name of the game: Israeli and Palestinian negotiators must work together much closer than before and must realize that their biggest enemy are radicals on both sides and not each other. Both sides must make concrete steps to improve the majority peace-seeking public opinion of the other side. Jewish Settlers and right wing activists as well as Palestinian national and Islamic militants will sabotage every turn in the road to peace. A look at past ten years and one can see a trend in which these radicals have blown up peace moves by their actions. It has become so predictable that Palestinians and Israelis brace themselves every time a crucial target date for decision-making approaches.

Radical groups should not be allowed to succeed. Not a single Israeli or Palestinian needs to perish in this inhuman fashion.

Those who genuinely seek peace must keep moving ahead in the talks no matter what happens on the ground. They might also want to consider working behind the scenes to produce an agreement for peace that will be presented to the public as a package deal rather than dealing with issues piece meal.

Land retention arguments are no longer valid: Much has been said about the effects to the Middle East of the end of the Saddam Hussein regime. But surprisingly little has been said about the strategic meaning of the presence of US forces to the territorial security arguments that have for years blocked Palestinian-Israeli agreements.

Land retention arguments, whether in the Jordan Valley or in West Bank hill top can no more hold water now that US troops are in the Iraqi capital. Instead, Israel must give up its territorial expansionist ambitions.

Everyone involved knows exactly what is needed to bring about a fair and viable agreement to the Middle East conflict. Key elements to such an agreement were reached in the Egyptian resort of Taba in January 2001. If Palestinian land is to become part of a viable state in 2005 as President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair continuously promise Palestinians, how could that happen while Israelis are fortifying, expanding and building new settlements, outposts and the by pass roads leading to them.

If the question of Palestinian statehood is no longer if and when but how, what local and international negotiators should put effort and time on is the issue of the viability of the new Palestinian state, mostly issues of borders and inter state relations.

On their own, leaders of Israel and Palestine have shown that they are incapable of producing the positions needed for a lasting peace. Outside parties have had a lot in creating the conflict, and it will take a concerted effort by these parties on local leaders to produce long term results. President Bush and world leaders must continue their efforts on both sides until they produce agreements that can stand the test of time. To local and international leaders, the unified call from the Middle East is: please don’t blow it this time.

The scores of innocent Israelis killed Saturday and Sunday in a series of Palestinian suicide attacks and the scores of innocent Palestinians killed before and since in various Israeli operations, point to the need for a new approach to resolve the Palestinian-Israel conflict. . This new approach must be based on secrecy and the need to work out a package agreement away from the pressures and pitfalls of a publicly declared process.

Although as a journalist I whole heartedly support freedom of expression, in this case, I believe that lives can be saved by temporarily refraining from the exercise of this right.

A clear pattern has been emerging for years. On the eve of any publicized high level visit, or time-linked arrangements, hardliners seem to get active. A Palestinian land to build a Jewish settlement here, or a Palestinian attack against Israeli settlers there. An Israeli assassination or incursion here or a gruesome Palestinian suicide attack in a major Israeli city there. The situation has become so predictable that Palestinians and Israelis brace themselves every time high profile visits or crucial target date for decision-making approaches.

For the most part these attacks and counter attacks are meant mostly to send a message to their own leaders and public and to sabotage progress in the peace process. Invariably these attacks produced a retaliation that would be quickly claimed as proof that the other side doesn’t want peace.

Radical groups should not be allowed to succeed. Not a single Israeli or Palestinian need to perish in this inhuman fashion.

The recently publicized US-led road map to peace in the Middle East is another such open invitation for any side opposed to the compromises that peace entails. With every publicly declared target date, hard-line settlers and hawkish army officers as well as militant Palestinian groups see an open invitation to sabotage the peace process.

For over thirty years, the Palestinian population, moderate and hard line nationals as well as Islamists have suffered Israel humiliation and brutality. In Israeli prisons, radicals and moderates Palestinians have reached common bondage. Out of prison ground they are unable and unwilling to fight each other.

Similarly, Israeli societies suffering from the random Palestinian attacks have difficulties separating doves and hawks. Pro settlement hardliners opposed to any compromise and wishing to kick out all Palestinians are part of the establishment and some even participate in the Israeli governing coalition.

To both groups, the idea of controlling their own hardliners seems next to impossible. Leaders on both sides insist that such internal crackdown will lead to a civil war.

This leaves authentic peace loving negotiators one of two choices. Either to keep moving ahead in the talks no matter what happens on the ground, or work behind the scenes to produce an agreed upon peace deal that will be presented to the public to vote for as a package deal.

The first option calls for a parallel approach to work for peace and fight violence. The late Yitzhak Rabin publicly adopted this approach. He repeatedly said that peace talks must continue as if there was no violence and that violence must be tackled as if there were no peace talks.

Israel’s present government seems unable or willing to adopt such a policy. By canceling his long awaited trip to Washington, following Sunday’s anti Israeli attacks, Ariel Sharon showed he can’t adopt the Rabin approach as a way to stop the cycle of violence.

The Palestinian Authority has not fared any better even with help from the head of the Egyptian intelligence service. Attempts to convince the militants to unilaterally stop their anti Israeli attacks have failed, partly because Israel has refused to promise to stop its policy of assassinating what it calls leaders of “terrorists.”

Israeli settlers and settlements are not popular in Israel. Poll after poll show that the majority of Israelis would accept a peace process without settlements rather than settlements without peace. But despite these poll, settlers seem to have an exaggerated power within Israeli decision makers. The Palestinian public similarly say that they prefer a solution without resorting to attacks against Israeli civilians but such ideas fail to produce results.

This leaves Palestinian and Israeli leaders as well as the international community with one simple mechanism to break up this ugly cycle of violence. By now all the parties know exactly what is needed to bring about a fair and viable agreement to the Middle East conflict. Key elements to such an agreement was reached in the Egyptian resort of Taba in January 2001 and have been articulated by US president George Bush.

Some might say that this approach was attempted by Clinton, Barak and Arafat in Camp David. But although the talks in Camp David were held in secret, they were rushed, ill prepared for and the public was well aware of them and their failure left a major disappointment we are suffering from till now.

What we need now is a handful of honest and authentic leaders meeting in secret to work out all the details. After getting the blessing of the US and other international parties such package agreement would be presented to the Palestinian and Israeli public. The majority of both sides will be asked to say yes or no without the chance to make any amendments. I am confident that such a concerted effort will receive positive approval in a referendum of Palestinians and Israelis. It would surely end unnecessary suffering, injury and death and usher in genuine peace.

Much has been said about the effects to the Middle East of the end of the Saddam Hussein regime. But surprisingly nothing has been said about the strategic meaning of the presence of US forces to the territorial security arguments that have blocked Palestinian-Israeli agreements.

Ever since the 1967 Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Israeli officials have repeated rejected the suggestion of total Israeli withdrawal to the June 4th 1967 borders. The very premise of UN Security Council resolution 242 which states in its preamble “the inadmissibility of occupying land by force,” and called for “Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories” has been absent from every single Israeli peace plan. Even the so called ‘generous” Israeli offer made by Ehud Barak at Camp David failed to meet the test of full withdrawal in return for full peace.

In their repeated justification for rejecting total Israeli withdrawal from the Palestinian territories Israeli politicians and security strategists have consistently insisted that they could not withdraw from areas like the Jordan Valley because of its strategic value. Former Israeli Labour official Yigal Allon and Likud leader Ariel Sharon have taken foreign officials on air and land tours to defend their positions. Armed with maps, Israeli officials have pointed to the narrowness of the center of their country and the need for a buffer zone to protect Israel from Arab tanks and missiles. When Israel signed a peace agreement with Jordan, this argument became much weaker, especially after Jordan agreed to the Israeli request that no Arab army would be allowed into Jordan.

With Iraq’s Saddam Hussein in power and following the 26 scud missiles that were fired at Israel in the 1990 Gulf War, Israel was able to continue to hold on this strategic security argument. Withdrawing from Palestinian territories especially the Jordan Valley and settler occupied mountain tops was repeatedly rejected by Israelis because of the concern from Iraqi missile attacks.

This argument can no more hold water now that US troops are in the Iraqi capital and there is little chance that America and its allies will allow any future threat to Israel from Iraq. Land and territorial integrity of a future Palestinian state have been repeatedly stated as essential for any peace agreement. Unlike what has been stated by Israeli officials and their apologists land and not refugees was the issue that blocked agreement in the final months of the Clinton administration. Palestinian and Israeli negotiators meeting in the Egyptian resort of Taba in January 2001 said that they were never closer in resolving the conflict. The Palestinian’s right of return, always a thorny issue among Palestinian refugees was resolved in those talks. Agreement even on the issue of Jerusalem was reached in Taba. Both sides agreed on President Clinton’s idea of Arab neighborhoods to be under Palestinian sovereignty while Jewish settlements to be under Israeli sovereignty.

The only unresolved issue was that of land and Palestinians’ need for territorial integrity. If the viable Palestinian state that British Prime Minister Tony Blair is committed to is to be materialized, this issue of land must be resolved.

With the official announcement of the Road Map for peace in the Middle East, it would be very useful and time saving if the members of the quartet especially the American negotiators don’t allow the Israelis to insist on retaining Palestinian territories in the West Bank and Gaza strip. And now that the Iraqi army has been crushed and American troops are in Iraq, the one area that Israel should not waste negotiators time is their insistence on keeping Israeli troops in the Jordan Valley.

If the question of Palestinian statehood is no longer if and when but how, what local and international negotiators should put effort and time on is the issue of the viability of the new Palestinian state. The nature of the state, its administrative structure economy and relations with its neighbors are the key issue that will decide the longevity and success of the peace process. For a peace settlement to be successful it must meet Palestinian minimum aspirations of a democratic Palestinian state on all the territory alongside Israelis desires to live in a safe Israel within secured and recognized borders.