The protest statement signed by 27 Israeli airmen could go a long way in unlocking the puzzle that has kept the Middle East violence from abetting. By publicly stating their opposition to air strikes against Palestinian civilian targets and their refusal to carry out such missions, these brave Israelis can make a key contribution to reaching a lasting cease fire, an important step on the way to reaching a comprehensive peace. Much regional and international support will be needed to reach this important goal but the airmen’s protest could help close a missing piece of the puzzle.



For months, Palestinian militants and the Israeli army have been unable or unwilling to reach an effective ceasefire that has been Israeli’s pre condition to restarting peace talks. All attempts to reach a ceasefire have failed because of Israel’s refusal to stop its assassination policy of Palestinian leaders. Islamic and other hard line Palestinians have repeatedly made a conditional offer to reach a ceasefire and at time have unilaterally ceased fire. These truce attempts have repeatedly failed because of Israel’s insistence on continuing what it calls targeting killings. These assassinations which Amnesty International and other human rights organizations call extra judicial killings are normally carried out from the air by US made apache helicopters and at times from F-16 fighter jets. If the protest of the Israeli airmen snowballs, it could mark the de facto end of these senseless killings that only produce acts of revenge.



Ironically, the United States government which is actively prodding Palestinians and Israelis to return to the peace table has in the past refrained from directly criticizing the Israeli air strikes. When pressed the Bush administration spokesperson say that they understand Israel’s need for self defense but that they advice Israelis to consider the consequences of their actions.



The airmen’s protest must be saluted for its bravery and the high value that these Israelis place on Palestinian civilians. But for their courage to move ahead, the US and its partners in the quartet must seize on its contents and make it part of a cease fire plan.



Any ceasefire agreement requires both parties to refrain from attacking the other. These agreements normally include a clause setting up some kind of neutral third party monitors. Finally for such a ceasefire agreement to stand it must be followed immediately upon signing it with a concerted effort to produce a political solution to the issues that caused the warring parties to attack each other. Israel’s insistence in continuing with its assassination policy has led to a violent reaction. This pattern of assassinations followed by revenge suicide bombings and then further assassinations has become a broken record repeating itself ad nasum without either side giving in.



To break the cycle of violence the thought of one side crushing the other side must be removed. Israeli thinking that yet one more assassination will cause the Palestinians to crumble and the Palestinian belief that one more suicide attack would cause the Israelis to raise the white flag have proved to be futile. India’s Mahatma Ghandi once said that an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth leaves the world blind and toothless. There has to be a stop to this zero sum game and a return to a sane policy based on reciprocity, compromise and reasonability. The Israeli pilots’ action can contribute to breaking up this cycle of violence and force the leaders to abandon their ineffective violent activities.



The pattern of the past three years shows that the first order of business must be a ceasefire between the Israeli government and all its military and intelligence subsidiaries on the one hand and the Palestinian Authority with all the Palestinian factions. Such agreement must put an end to all types of military and armed attacks as well as assassinations. This agreement needs to be observed by a neutral third party. This could be done by the quartet led by the United States of America. Such a provision for foreign monitors already exists in the Road Map which all parties have publicly adopted.



To strengthen any ceasefire concerted round-the-clock negotiations (preferably in secret with top US involvement) must commence immediately. They need to be aimed at ending the occupation of the Palestinian areas and determining the issues of borders, settlements, refugees and Jerusalem. In this context, Israel must put aside the thoughts of choosing its negotiating partners Everyone involved in the Middle East knows pretty much what a peace agreement between the sides will most likely look like. In Taba, Palestinian and Israeli negotiators were very close to agreement on all those issues early in 2001. President Bush’s vision of a state of a free and independent Palestine established in 2005 alongside a safe and secure state of Israel could also be used as a reference point for the talks.

Ten years ago I had the honor of being the first Palestinian journalist to interview Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, for the leading daily Al Quds. "Mr. Prime Minister," I asked him, "what is your vision for the future of the Palestinians in 10 or 15 years?"



"I believe that the future of the Palestinians must be somehow connected with Jordan," Rabin answered, after a short pause.



He spoke those words in June 1993, while conducting secret negotiations that would shortly lead to the signing of the Oslo accords. Those historic negotiations led to, among other things, the recognition of the Palestine Liberation Organization as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people and the de facto recognition of the right to determine our own future.



As the intifada enters its fourth year next week, the Israeli dream of peace has been shattered by those who continue to mouth Rabin’s pre-Oslo words. Israel has reverted back to the useless effort of denying Palestinians legitimate leaders, and Israel’s strict and inhumane military occupation has made a mockery of the Palestinian right to self-determination.



The intifada has created a moral and political crisis for Israel. With each round of violence, Israeli leaders try to impose new and harsher repressive measures, with the hope that they can reach that elusive point of deterrence. But every such act raises up Palestinian hopelessness and desperation — rendering ineffective the repressive measures.



Whether it is knocking down eight-story buildings, assassinating militant leaders, further restricting the movement of 3 million Palestinians or building more settlements and walls on Palestinian lands, Palestinians have refused to surrender to Israeli dictates. To date, these Israeli shows of strength have failed to deter Palestinians or crush our political will.



The downward spiral of violence is unlikely to stop until the representatives, thinkers and people of Israel find the answer to one simple, important question: What do they want to do with the people and the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea?



Since neither Israelis nor Palestinians have any intention of leaving the land, and are dead set on determining their respective futures, we either need to share the land or the power. Sharing the power, of course, means living in a single, binational state. Most Israelis are opposed to the idea out of demographic concerns, and even Palestinians who used to favor a one-state solution have come to accept its impossibility.



The remaining option, then, is to share the land — two sovereign states. This was the choice legally adopted by the Palestine National Council in 1988 and by Israel under the Oslo accords. But Israeli actions since 1993, especially after Rabin’s assassination in 1995, seem to indicate that the two-state solution has not been completely accepted by the Israeli political establishment — and if it has, then Israeli leaders have not succeeded in translating it into action.



On the contrary, Israeli policies on the ground, especially in the field of expropriating Palestinian land for Jewish settlements, seem to confirm that Israel wants to keep the land without sharing power with the people. Such a policy means that a dual legal order will take hold as the de facto governing system, turning the status of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza into something akin to that of blacks in apartheid-era South Africa.



If, on the other hand, Israel really accepts the concept of a two-state solution, then someone in the government better think about the ramifications of the facts currently being built on the ground. The security fence under construction between Israel and the West Bank is essentially a separation wall, notwithstanding Israeli protests to the contrary.



The Palestinian concern is that the security fence, built deep into Palestinian territory, is effectively marking the future borders of an expanded Israel. The 30-foot high cement wall, built more to include Jewish settlements than to protect the State of Israel, does little to assuage Palestinian fears.



While the debate in Israel centers around the minutiae of the security fence, prominent thinkers on both sides of the conflict are calling for a refocusing on final-status issues. Palestinians such as Al Quds University professor Sari Nusseibeh and Israelis such as former Shin Bet chief Ami Ayalon understand that absent a comprehensive framework for peace, the violence will continue unabated.



Nusseibeh and Ayalon issued in April 2003 a peace plan that demarcates a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders. They propose that Jewish settlements be dismantled, and that Palestinian refugees be incorporated into the future Palestinian state. Thousands of Israelis and Palestinians voiced their agreement with the proposal by signing a petition supporting the campaign.



All the peace plans in the world, though, will not bring peace until Israelis and Palestinians are willing to sit down at the negotiating table. The Israeli leadership has made it clear that negotiations cannot begin without a cessation of Palestinian violence. No attempt, though, is made by Israel to realize the duality of the violence, and therefore the need for both parties to cease military activities. Israelis fail to accept that all violence — be it Palestinian suicide bombings or Israeli assassinations — must stop.



Dealing with interim solutions has so far proven to be disastrous, for Palestinians, for Israelis and for the prospects of peace. It is high time for the Israeli establishment to put time and effort into deciding the strategic future of the area.

Jerusalem — In the presidential and parliamentary elections that took place in 1996, I remember clearly my pride in participating in those first-ever Palestinian elections. US president Carter and others were among the many observers who monitored the elections and concluded that these elections were free and fair.



Yasser Arafat won 83% of the votes of Palestinians living in the West Bank (including Jerusalem ) and Gaza . At the time, I took my daughter to the voting booth and informed her that I was planning to vote for a woman Arafat’s rival, Samiha Khalil. It was a protest vote. I didn’t expect her to win.



My preference for a different kind of a Palestinian leader was increased the following year, when I was arrested by the Palestinian police, for seven days after the television station that I established, Al Quds Educational Television, broadcast live sessions of the Palestinian Legislative Council dealing with corruption in the Palestinian Authority.



I mention the above because like other proud Palestinians, the Israeli threats to deport or kill Arafat have made us all united behind him.



The popular support for Yasser Arafat therefore is not connected to a specific position vis a vise the Palestinian president, but a clear vote of support for the Palestinian presidency. When Israel decides to act against a freely elected leader of a people under its military occupation, they are denigrating and humiliating an entire people. While the ever so powerful Israel can run havoc in the Palestinian lands and to Palestinian people, all the military forces in the world can’t change the opinions, and loyalties of an individual or an entire people.



The right wing Sharon government’s reasons for wanting to get ride of the Palestinian leader doesn’t hold water. His government is blaming Arafat for all the problems facing Israel as they fail to carry out Sharon ‘s election promise to bring the Israeli people peace and security. Arafat’s major sin, in the eyes of Israelis, is their accusation that he has not authorized his prime minister to violently crack down on the Islamic militants who have carried suicide killings against Israelis.



For over two-and-a-half years, Israel has isolated Arafat in a kilometer square compound, and has crippled his regular security forces. Israeli soldiers have been roaming throughout the Palestinian territories, arresting, killing and destroying trees and houses and yet the attacks against Israelis have not stopped. A ten-foot high cement wall is being built way inside Palestinian territories. All this without bring any satisfactory results to Israelis. So, the Israeli logic goes, if they have not been able to stop the militants, Arafat should do it. And if Arafat refuses to do this dirty job, he must be punished. No attempt is even made to understand that it is the occupation, stupid.



Ariel Sharon and his militaristic government are not innocent. They have shown a clear disregard to every serious effort for peace. Even the latest peace offer, the road map to peace, coming from Israel ‘s American patrons has been conditionally accepted and has not been seriously enacted upon.



A pattern of Israeli attempts at sabotaging efforts at reaching quite has been clearly established. Israeli assassinations of Palestinian militants have repeatedly followed a publicly declared interest in a cessation of violence here or a unilaterally enforced hudna (truce) there.



Palestinians for their part can give many reasons why they would like not to negotiate with the current Israeli prime minister. Starting from the Kibbya massacre in the 50s through his repressive policies in Gaza in the 70s through Sabra and Shatilla in the 80s and the settlement activities in the 90s, Ariel Sharon is not the Palestinian’s favorite negotiating partner. Yet Palestinians have agreed to sit down and talk to the legitimately elected leader of Israel because they have long learned that you don’t negotiate with your friends.



One question, however, does need to be answered. Can negotiations begin before a cessation of the violence. To Israel ‘s Sharon and his tough minister of defense the answer is that yes. Palestinian violence must end before the negotiations can begin. No attempt is made to realize the duality of the violence and therefore the need for both parties to cease the military activities. No attempt is made to accept that all violence, whether they are dubbed acts of self defense (trying to kill the wheel chaired, relatively moderate Sheikh Yassin) or terrorists acts (which in Israel considers every anti Israeli attack whether victims are civilians or soldiers) must stop. A ceasefire is possible provided that both parties adhere to it, a third party monitors both sides and a parallel movement in the negotiations takes place to bolster the ceasefire.



The United States and its president invested time and prestige to accomplish the desires of Palestinians and Israelis it must take a strong and proactive role now based on its own democratic values including the rights of the people to determine their own future. In this context I think the Bush administration must admit that it made a mistake by agreeing blindly to the unreasonable Israeli demands to shun a leader elected on the basis of the US endorsed Oslo Agreement. Yasser Arafat might not be liked by many in Israel , in the United States and even among many Palestinians. But when a foreign occupying power tries to get rid of him, the attacks is seen as opposing Palestinian integrity and independence. In such a situation all Palestinians become Arafat.

The new Palestinian prime minister Ahmed Qurei has a daunting challenge ahead of him. He needs to walk between the rain drops of continued Israeli military actions against Palestinians, US ambivalence and lack of real support for the peace process and militant Palestinian groups who want to carry out acts of revenge every time one of their leaders is assassinated



In order to break out of this series of Israeli assassinations follow by Palestinian suicide bombings, a change of thinking and actions is required.



The thought that either side can crush the other side and declare victory has proven elusive and has left a trail of blood and hatred.



Palestinian leaders feel that Israel must be made to understand that preemptive attacks and assassinations only increase the chance of more anti Israeli attacks not less. So far the right wing Sharon government, which seems to only give lip service to peace, is more than happy engaging in military actions that they know will lead to Palestinian retaliations. And as the tough Israeli actions fail to deter Palestinians, Israel seems to raise their harsh inhuman acts with the hope that maybe then Palestinians would stop. But all the inhumane Israeli actions seems to produce is more determined Palestinian reaction, and the cycle of killing and violence continues.



The US government must change its attitude. Instead of stating that they understand that Israeli must defend itself, the Bush administration needs to come out clearly and unambiguously against Israel’s assassination acts and its collective punishment which includes uprooting decades old olive trees and destroying eight story buildings in addition to massive travel restrictions and continued settlement activity. If the Americans can get Israel to agree on this simple request, the situation could be ripe for enacting a cease fire agreement that would be the prelude to a genuine peace process.



Until recently Israeli officials have publicly and privately refused to respond to the Palestinian request for reaching a cease fire agreement. Instead they have pressed for the impossible request that the Palestinian Authority dismantle the militant groups, an act that Israel with all its powers has not succeeded in accomplishing. A deadly civil war would surely ensue if the Palestinian Authority attempts to crush Palestinian militants at a time of unrelentless Israeli attacks on them and their leaders and without any tangible progress in the peace talks.



Any ceasefire agreement requires both parties to refrain from attacking the other. These agreements normally include a clause setting up some kind of neutral third party monitors and finally for such a ceasefire agreement to stand it must be followed immediately upon signing it with a concerted effort to produce a political solution to the issues that caused the warring parties to attack each other. . The hudna worked out between the militant Palestinian groups and the Palestinian Authority with the knowledge of the Americans clearly was missing a major component with the absence of Israel in the agreement. One key component of this three month one sided truce was that Israel refrain from assassinating the leaders of the Palestinian resistance groups. Israel’s insistence in continuing with its assassination policy has led to a violent reaction. This pattern of assassinations followed by revenge suicide bombings and then further assassinations has become a broken record repeating itself ad nasum without either side giving in. To break the cycle of violence the thought of one side crushing the other side must be removed. Israeli thinking that yet one more assassination will cause the Palestinians to crumble and the Palestinian belief that one more suicide attack would cause the Israelis to raise the white flag have proved to be futile. India’s Mahatma Ghandi once said that an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth leaves the world blind and toothless. There has to be a stop to this zero sum game and a return to a sane policy based on reciprocity, compromise and reasonability.



The pattern of the past three years shows that the first order of business must be a ceasefire between the Israeli government and all its military and intelligence subsidiaries on the one hand and the Palestinian Authority with all the Palestinian factions. Such agreement must put an end to all types of military and armed attacks as well as assassinations. This agreement needs to be observed by a neutral third party. This could be done by the quartet led by the United States of America. Such a provision for foreign monitors already exists in the Road Map which was written by the US and which all parties have publicly adopted.



Finally such a ceasefire must be supported by concerted round-the-clock negotiations (preferably in secret with top US involvement) aimed at ending the basic reason for the violence, namely the occupation of the Palestinian areas and determining the issues of borders, settlements, refugees and Jerusalem. In this context, Israel must put aside the thoughts of choosing its negotiating partners. Palestinian president Yaser Arafat is the legitimately elected and historic leader of the Palestinian people. No serious negotiations can take place and no results can last, if one party vetoes the representatives of the other side. Real peace requires agreement between enemies and not friends.



Everyone involved in the Middle East knows pretty much what a peace agreement between the sides will most likely look like. In Taba, Palestinian and Israeli negotiators were very close to agreement on all those issues early in 2001. President Bush’s vision of a state of a free and independent Palestine established in 2005 alongside a safe and secure state of Israel could also be used as a reference point for the talks.