- a Palestinian state in line with [1] and [2] above, with

- East Jerusalem as the capital, and

- the right of return - as a right, numbers to be negotiated.

Israel has two minimum, non-negotiable demands:

　　　　 The Palestinian legitimacy rests on continued residence, and the
Jewish legitimacy on territorial attachment in their cultural
narratives, and their residence there in the past.　 It does not rest
on their suffering at German and European hands.　 Any territorial bill
on that basis would have to be placed at the feet of Germany.

　　　　 The demands are compatible because they can be bridged by a two
states solution with the 1967 borders, to be spelt out below.

　　　　 But there are also maximum goals: an Eretz Israel defined by
Genesis between the two rivers Nile and Euphrates (or something in that
direction), and on the Palestinian/Arab/Muslim side no Israel at all,
erased from the map.　 Their incompatibility is obvious. But they are
also illegitimate.　 There is more than a de facto basis for a Jewish
state, even if never anything with that extension.

　　　　 How strong are the maximum demands?　 A major tragedy of this war
that it strengthens the maximalists, not only "hatred". On the Israeli
side some will feel the borders cannot be far enough out, at least
where disarmament of anyone hostile to Israel is concerned. And their
numbers are increasing by the days, weeks, months of war. On the
Arab/Muslim side there some will feel the solution to Israel is no
Israel at all; their numbers no doubt also increasing.

　　　　 The two maximalist positions are emotionally and intellectually
satisfying, being simple, easy to understand.　 And spell nothing but
endless war.　 The Arabs have to accept SOME Israel state, but not the
overextended, belligerent monster of today. And the Jews have to
understand that settler colonialism AND occupation AND continued
expansion will never bring them secure borders.　 The road to security
passes through peace.　 There is no road to peace that passes through
security in the sense of eliminating people-supported Hezbollah and
democratically elected Hamas.　 What perhaps might work against smaller
and less firmly rooted groups will never work today.

　　　　 There will be new groups coming up all the time.　 Governments may
be bribed or threatened into acquiescence, people never.　 Behind Israel
there are some increasingly unwilling governments, also behind settler
colonialism: USA, UK, Australia.　 Behind Palestine there is the Arab
and Muslim world - considerably larger.　 Maybe 1.3 billion and
increasing, as against 0.3 billion and decreasing.

　　　　 The in-between peace position must be made equally compelling.
There is the 1967 possible meeting point with minor revisions and the
idea of two states with capitals in Jerusalem (thus, Jerusalem could
become a confederation of two cities, East and West).

　　　　 But two demands still have to be met: the Israeli demand for
security and the Palestinian for the right of some, limited, return.

　　　　 Saudi Arabia's recognition is a necessary but not sufficient
condition for positive peace.　 Sovereign states may recognize each
other and still go to war.　 They must be woven together in a web of
positive interdependence making sustainable peace desirable to both.

　　　　 Since Israel wants secure borders, why not focus on the border
countries Lebanon, Syria, Palestine recognized, Jordan and Egypt?
Imagine the five border countries add to recognition a readiness to
consider a Middle East Community, along the lines of the European
Community, as a major carrier of sustainable peace in the region?　　　
The formula that accommodated Germany may also accommodate Israel.

　　　　 There would still be the problem of Palestinian return, half a
million in Lebanon alone.　 And there is the problem of some parts of
the West bank being a part of the Israeli narrative of the past.　 So
why not exchange one for the other?　 Some Jewish cantons in a West Bank
under Palestinian sovereignty in exchange for some Arab cantons inside
a sovereign Israel?　 Both states could become federations rather than
unitary states that are relics of the past anyhow.

　　　　 The non-governmental Geneva agreement is a non-starter because it
fall short on three rather major points:

- East Jerusalem as capital and a right of return are non-negotiable

- borders can only become reasonably secure in a peace community, like
the Nordic Union, the European Union, and ASEAN.

　　　　 This peace solution is compelling by being so obvious.

　　　　 But not obvious to Israeli and Western leaders now traveling down
the Viet Nam trail, with Israel: Lebanon = USA: Viet Nam. USA did not
win, and withdrew.　 The same will happen to Israel.　 Further down, on
the same trail of mad stupidity, 9/11 and Iraq are waiting.

　　　　 There is the idea of Lebanon in two parts, with international
forces pacifying a South isolated from two evil outsiders, Syria and
Iran.　 As doomed to failure as in Viet Nam.　 Hezbollah is a part of
Lebanon like "Viet Cong" of Viet Nam. And arms are easily available.

　　　　 There is the indiscriminate killing of civilians, in line with the
two points made by the Israeli army chief of staff, General Dan Halutz:
to bomb ten building in the Shiite district of Beirut for each Katyusha
missile launched against Israel, and to "bomb Lebanon 20 years into the
past" (EL PAIS 28/7, HAARETZ and JERUSALEM POST; USA said back to the
Stone Ages). Hezbollah also kills civilians, but the ratios are at
least 10:1　　 The final ratio may be closer to Hitler's famous order in
1941 to execute 50 civilians for each German soldier killed by the
"terrorists" (they used that term): Lidice in the Chech Republic,
Oradour-sur-Glane in France, Kortelisy in Ukraine. Today most of
Lebanon is used for collective punishment. And to Israel Jewish lives
are worth much more than Arab lives.

　　　　 There is the naive idea that violence disappears if Hezbollah is
disarmed, along UNSC 1559 lines. But 1559 makes no sense without 194
and 242. Israel cannot pick a resolution it wants, relying on USA
forever controlling the UN. And Hezbollah will be reborn.

　　　　 THERE IS A CONFLICT, THE CONFLICT CRIES FOR A SOLUTION, THE
SOLUTION IS AT HAND AND WILL ONE DAY BE AS OBVIOUS AS THE EC/EU.

　　　　 Everybody should work for real peace as political complement to
immediate humanitarian cease-fire.　 To help Israel stumble down the
Viet Nam trail is blind solidarity, not an act of friendship.

　　　　 Europeans could mobilize the talent and experience of the European
Community/Union for a sustainable peace, not for infinite and
escalating warfare.　 That would be an act of true friendship.

　　　　 And in Israel itself?　 A coming generation might do well to
question the wisdom of the major Zionist ideologue, Vladimir
Yabotinsky, inspiring Begin, Netanyahu, Sharon and now Olmert. To
Yabotinsky there seem to be only two options, either "impotent,
humiliating self-sacrifice or militant, invincible rage" (Jacqueline
Rose, "The Zionist Imagination" in THE NATION, June 26, 2006, s. 34)
To Yabotinsky Jews had been humiliated, shamed by violence, and the
answer is militancy, violence.　 This vision, apart from making violence
a cornerstone of human existence, is short on the third option:
negotiation, settlement, peace.

　　　　 And the Arabs, Muslims?　 Something similar.　 But Islam opens for
a third possibility, not only dar-al-Islam and dar-al-Harb, the House
of Peace, the House of war, there is the dar-al-Ahd, the coexistence
with the infidels - possibly in a community, not too close, not too
distant.　 Possibly also as an Organization for the Security and
Cooperation in the Middle East.　 The present generation would also do
well to elaborate this in more detail, today.

　　　　 When will those generations come, how far have we been set back?
Difficult to tell. The three building blocs for peace have been there
for some time, but nothing seemed acceptable to Israel. They never were
let into the collective mind, into public space.　 Outside pressure will
only confirm the stark Yabotinsky dichotomy.　 If Israel wants security,
mainstream Israel must want peace.

　　　　 That leaves us with the maximalists.　 Their strongest argument
against the moderates is "your line doesn't work". And the strongest
counter-argument, like for ETA, for IRA, is to prove them wrong.