Stardate 20020203.1120

(On Screen via long range sensors): Arafat is surrounded, threatened, isolated and in deep trouble. He now writes for the NY Times and describes how the Palestinians are a peace-loving people who merely want a reasonable deal from big, bad Israel.

The Palestinian vision of peace is an independent and viable Palestinian state on the territories occupied by Israel in 1967, living as an equal neighbor alongside Israel with peace and security for both the Israeli and Palestinian peoples. In 1988, the Palestine National Council adopted a historic resolution calling for the implementation of applicable United Nations resolutions, particularly, Resolutions 242 and 338. The Palestinians recognized Israel's right to exist on 78 percent of historical Palestine with the understanding that we would be allowed to live in freedom on the remaining 22 percent, which has been under Israeli occupation since 1967. Our commitment to that two-state solution remains unchanged, but unfortunately, also remains unreciprocated

Doesn't look unreasonable at all, does it? In fact, it looks suspiciously like the Barak proposal, which Arafat turned down. One has to wonder why. Fortunately for us, he then makes it clear.

In addition, we seek a fair and just solution to the plight of Palestinian refugees who for 54 years have not been permitted to return to their homes. We understand Israel's demographic concerns and understand that the right of return of Palestinian refugees, a right guaranteed under international law and United Nations Resolution 194, must be implemented in a way that takes into account such concerns. However, just as we Palestinians must be realistic with respect to Israel's demographic desires, Israelis too must be realistic in understanding that there can be no solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict if the legitimate rights of these innocent civilians continue to be ignored. Left unresolved, the refugee issue has the potential to undermine any permanent peace agreement between Palestinians and Israelis.

Arafat proves a master of double-talk. Israeli objections to the "right of return" are not based on demographic concerns; they're based on the detailed issue of the land in question. It's not just that the Palestinians want to return to the territory which Israel owned in 1967, but that they will want back specific sections of that property which were under Palestinian ownership in 1947.

"See that office building there? I want it moved. My grandparents farmed the land under it in 1947, and I want it back. Oh, and get rid of that highway, and that factory, and that hotel while you're at it. And tear down all those houses; we're going to be putting a barn there." That, or something like it, would be repeated a million times. And because of that, it's the one demand that Israel cannot grant. No compromise is possible on this point.

It may well be that a great deal of the territory in modern Israel at one time belonged to Palestinians who were forced off that land. But after enough time has passed, such claims become irrelevant. After 54 years, there is no longer any plausible right of return.

This paragraph by Arafat exactly contradicts his statement in the previous one that "Palestinians recognize Israel's right to exist on 78 percent of historical Palestine". They want to resettle that 78% and take most of it back in detail, if not in gross. It would remain under the control of the Israeli government, but not under the control of the Israelis who live there now. Probably three quarters of the population of Israel proper would be displaced. That is not politically possible.

By painting this as an Israeli "demographic" objection, he deliberately obscures the real objection: Israel isn't going to give that land back. The land in the West Bank and Gaza (including the Israeli settlements there) is negotiable. The land in Israel proper is gone forever. And because of that, there's nowhere for those Palestinian refugees to return to.

How is a Palestinian refugee to understand that his or her right of return will not be honored but those of Kosovar Albanians, Afghans and East Timorese have been?

By recognizing that there's a difference between being displaced for 3 years, and being displaced for 54. And maybe, just maybe, by having a leader who has the guts and intelligence to tell his own people that they can't have everything that they want, and that they'll either have to settle for less or get nothing at all. Arafat could have gotten everything he wanted except the right of return if he had accepted the Barak proposal.

The cycle [of violence] has led many to conclude that peace is impossible, a myth borne out of ignorance of the Palestinian position.

Unfortunately, no. Those of us who believe peace is impossible come to that conclusion based on a full understanding of the real Palestinian position. The problem is that the "right of return" is non-negotiable. The Palestinians insist on it, and the Israelis will never agree to it even slightly. There can be no compromise on it. It is the issue, the one concession Israel can never make, and peace will only become possible when the Palestinians realize that and giv