He means it as an expression of modesty, considering that whatever happens here, whatever good or bad decisions we make, we'll have to live with the direct, immediate, and most significant consequences. Whatever consequences he'll feel while living in the US are mostly indirect and limited.

But even for those of us living here, some version of that approach makes sense. I have my own preferences about what should happen, what compromises I can live with, what I think others can or should live with, etc., but I'm just one person. And maybe I'm wrong. So, just like I respect the results of a democratic election even if I personally voted differently and perhaps think that the popular choice was a poor one, likewise I would probably support just about any imaginable solution if I saw that it was what most people on both sides wanted.

When we look at what has a realistic chance for success, what can perhaps win the support of most people on both sides -- the area of overlap between the greatest compromise Israel is likely to contemplate and the greatest compromise Palestine is likely to contemplate -- we're talking about a very narrow area or possibly no area at all. IOW, there aren't so many choices.

That's why all serious peace plans in recent years -- the Beilin-Abu Mazen document, the unofficial Geneva Accord, the plans put forward by Barak and Clinton at Camp David and Taba, etc. -- look very similar. There are small variations here and there, but the broad outlines of the only solution possible if there is to be peace, are well known to both sides.

If you want to know my solution, it lies somewhere in there. We can talk about specifics if you want, but IMO once the strategic decision has been made on both sides to go for a peaceful two-state solution, exactly where the border goes, how the experts work out the water issue, how travel between a Palestinian Gaza and West Bank is accommodated, exactly what security arrangements are made, etc., become solvable issues.

Wonderful steve. You are getting somewhere near what is needed.

You recognise the Palestinians as well as the Israelis need a peaceful and secure state but there is just one small problem you highlight.

The only peace proposals you look at are as reasonable are those proposed by non-Arabs. Is is possible to take that small step and acknowledge the Arabs and Palestinians have a negotiable peace propasal as well.

Any discussion without that acknowledgement becomes insincere.

And that insincerity is one of the many things that gets up my nose. The supporters of Israeli positions display that over and over and over. Is this to be another example of that? And Steve why don't you write that article discussing all the avenues to peace and show as much balance as I and include an assessment of that Arab proposal.

Keith what is the difference between a "palestinian" and a "jordanian". What is the difference in language, culture, music, literature? Religion? Isn't Jordan in Palestine? Why do the arabs need a 22nd or 23rd state (I forget)? My people the Cornish don't have a state. Even though in English law Cornwall is separate from England. Maybe we need to start setting off bombs and Keith write a dissertation for us.

The Arabs have a superiority complex with other peoples. If the Arabs could have allowed the Jews self determination then they wouldn't have invaded a nascent Israel in 1948 and got their noses bloodied. SOME of the "palestinians" would never have left their villages/settlements and they would never have had their "nakhba". They - the ARABS will always have "nakhbas" as they don't respect other peoples.

Tell me Keith why are Jewish settlements "illegal"? If its illegal go call a cop. Many Jewish settlements were in "occupied Palestine" back in the early 1900s - all those Jews got cleaned out Keith. Remember 1929? Also if the Arabs wanted peace they could have recognised their own ethnic cleansing of Sephardic Jews in the 1940s and 50s and be willing to resettle the 3-4th generation refugees in Gaza...but they don't do they Keith. The fact that there are no tourists on the beaches in Gaza has nothing to do with Israel but with islamic/arab values.

I am no Jew Keith. All I do is compare the lavish funding given to the Arabs called Palestinians with far more legitimate causes including the Welsh, Basques and Sahrawis (go look em up). I am sick of tired of leftists like you that whine about America and Israel and refuse to look at the totalitarian islamic values you champion.

Israel is supported by the US but then so is Egypt and a lot of other islamic countries...do the Americans get what they pay for? Judging from the Egyptian press it would seem not. I would think the entire aid given to Israel would not exceed the islamic world. In addition to the transfer of $ for oil. Lebanon was messed up long before Israel came in to take out the PLO. I remember the Shia of south lebanon welcoming the Israelis. Israel is a responsible western state. They are entitled to nuclear weapons because they are like us. Why should Iran get nuclear weapons given its statements of wiping Israel out and denial of the holocaust? Do you remember the keys to paradise? All those kids running into minefields in the Iran-Iraq war as mine detectors. Do you think Iran is mature enough to have nukes? If you do then you have shown your true colours - you love despots and hate America -thats the road you are on.

Lebanon is partly governed by Hezbollah - it launched a kidnapping and unprovoked attack upon Israel last year. Its reason was to free some deranged islamo nut who killed a little girl and her father on an israeli beach back in 1979. I don't hear any reciprocity for Ron Arad? Hezbollah got bailed out because Olmert was incompetent. If you want to call me a racist - fine - nowadays people don't care - they didn't care too much at Cronulla did they? Its lost its meaning. Arabs are irresponsible - they praise the murder of civilians in Israel. But thats alright for you as they are "illegal occupiers". If I used their analogy then all the muslims/english/rest of the emmets in Britain are "illegal occupiers". Where will be then Keith?

Keith: "The only peace proposals you look at are as reasonable are those proposed by non-Arabs."

Not true. Among the proposals I mentioned were the Beilin-Abu Mazen Document and the Geneva Accord.

Abu Mazen is Mahmoud Abbas, Arafat's successor and the current president of the Palestinian Authority. For more on the Beilin-Abu Mazen Document, see http://www.bitterlemons.org/docs/beilinmazen.html

The Geneva Accord was negotiated by teams of Palestinian and Israeli public figures -- government ministers, parliament members, military leaders, mayors, academics, intellectuals, business leaders, etc. The most prominent name on the Palestinian side is probably Yasser Abd-Rabbo, a former minister in the Palestinian government and a member of the Executive Committee of the PLO. For more on this, see http://www.geneva-accord.org

Keith: "Is is possible to take that small step and acknowledge the Arabs and Palestinians have a negotiable peace propasal as well."

One significant problem with both of these "agreements" is that they are unofficial. They were negotiated by prominent national leaders on both sides who wish to show the parameters of agreements that realistically could be reached, but they in themselves do not constitute official offers or proposals by either side.

You wish for me to "acknowledge the Arabs and Palestinians have a negotiable peace propasal as well". I have never denied that Palestinians and other Arabs are capable of producing peace agreements to which Israelis can also agree, as these documents, and indeed as the official peace agreements between Israel and Egypt and Jordan, respectively, demonstrate.

But to date, the Palestinian Authority has yet to produce a single official peace offer. In this sense, there is no Palestinian peace proposal that Israel could accept, reject, or agree to use as a basis for further negotiation. Israel did produce such offers at Camp David, but the Palestinian team rejected them without making any counterproposals. Though it often helps to find balance between the two sides, regarding this basic issue, the two sides are not balanced.

Steve

Your post typifies the problem. Your post makes it clear you think it is only the Israelis who seek peace.

You just will not accept any proposal that is put forward that does not toady to Israeli interests at the expense of the Palestinian interests. Either in land or security interests. Every proposal you've supported severely limits the Palestinians in some way where Israelis on similar issues are allowed carte blanche. They are not just in their treatment of the Palestinians.

Yet the Arab League proposal which reflects a true desire for a just peace with the exception of the clause demanding the return of the refugees, you simply ignore and turn the focus onto the Palestinians and attempt to wedge them from the Arabs in peace proposals. The PLO as a representative for the Palestinian people has been a member of the Arab League since 1974.

See the problem.

Basically when it comes to peace the problem is two fold. The Israelis want secure borders and to retain the occupied and settled Palestinian territory. The Palestinians want their lands back ('67 border), their own secure and independant State, with Jeresulem as their Capital, and a return for the refugees.

The only things that really stops peace from occurring is those illegal settlements, the Palestinian Capital and the return of the refugees.

So why not support a just peace proposal that makes compromises, by both sides on those conditions?

And that Arab peace proposal meets those conditions more significantly than any of those proposals you support. Peace can never be attained where one side is treated unjustly.

Those proposals by Ehud Barak were far from just. A quick look at the map proposing the borders of the Palestinian state shows that clearly.

No Magic Jess you're not racist but you seem to prefer war and killing rather than peace.