Anyone with eyes in his head knows the land will be divided between the Israelis and the Palestinians, along borders similar to the pre-1967 lines, and that the refugee problem will be resolved through a reparations arrangement. Every few years, there is an attempt to move toward such a diplomatic division, and the moderates suffer a resounding failure as radicals on both sides undermine compromises by claiming "it's all mine."

The settlers think - correctly, by and large - that every failed round of talks further strengthens them, and that time is on their side. But what is good for the settlers is bad for the country. Last week, Moshe Levinger and Daniella Weiss were once again clashing with Israel Defense Forces soldiers on hilltops. Another Sebastia at Homesh, another house commandeered by squatters, another expansion of an existing settlement, another infiltration of an Arab neighborhood. If Israel's strategic goal is to live in peace with its neighbors, it must work harder to block the settlers. Anyone who does not want a historic compromise is bolstered by the violence and suffering the sides cause each other.

Has another opportunity for change become available, now that the West Bank is controlled by PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayad, and the State of Israel is being led by people prepared to divide the land? Will Tony Blair, even if his job is limited to establishing Palestinian government institutions, generate a sweeping new dynamic? Has Condoleezza Rice committed herself to advancing an Israeli-Palestinian agreement as part of the global effort to bolster the moderates? Will the peace-seeking Israeli president contribute?

	Advertisement

The Israeli side cannot wait for the results of the tussle between Hamas and Fatah. It was therefore important to hear the prime minister, his vice-premier Haim Ramon and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni saying that "there is a partner for talks," and that these talks should take place urgently. The ball is largely in our court, as we are the party in possession of the territories supposed to serve the independent Palestinian state. The disengagement from Gaza, which is considered a failure, was not carried out by agreement with the Palestinians. But despite the Qassam fire, nobody can imagine another solution to the conflict other than each side assembling in its own independent country.

Ehud Olmert's government is powerful in the Knesset and weak among the public, but the diplomatic positions it is putting forward vis-a-vis the Palestinians are held by the majority. The public does not support the evacuees who want to return to Homesh. Abbas and Fayad claim this is also the case on the Palestinian side, and that if a fair agreement is placed on the table and put to a referendum, a majority of Palestinians will support it. We currently have the opportunity to draft such an agreement, even if its implementation is postponed or partially executed according to Ramon's plan, which calls for a withdrawal by agreement, and the deployment of an international force in the area. Since the solution is really not in dispute, and both sides have learned and suffered much from the second intifada, we may be able to come to the international conference being planned for this fall with more than an agreement of principles, and have the moderate Arab states help promote it.