YM is entirely correct in his analysis. I would add that to resolve this conflict for good Israel needs to put all her cards on the table and ask everyone involved (all muslim nations, all factions of Palestinian) to formally agree to it.

a - pull back to 1967 borders, dismantle ALL settlements. (It should be as easy to move out as it was to move in. After all they knew they were moving into someone else's land).

b - give East Jerusalem to Palestinians

c - compensate the refugees.

d - the new state will be sovereign in every sense with full air/sea/land border controls but will not have a military for the next 25 years. Israel can build a wall on '67 borders if she likes.

I know some will say "Israel is giving up everything and not getting anything in return. Not true. Israel is getting PEACE. Israel is also getting the right to have a "Jewish state", an anomaly in itself, while still being considered a democracy on land that once belonged to others. And most importantly, the world is getting rid of a primary cause of islamist terrorism.

Anything short of the above spells to Israel not wanting a 2 state solution.

fizzkidd - Israel has not paid one dime back. Not only that, but the interest due on the loans is regularly refinanced. This is a matter of public record.

Sorry, fizzkid. WMD in Tel Aviv would be devastating for everyone in a region roughly the size of New Jersey...

Thank you 'M' for your wonderful idea. I agree that all the Arab states must treat their Palestinian brothers with utmost respect, dignity are care. One wouldn't expect any less than that for their guests.

As far as a peaceful solution is concerned, I would love to see total cessation of hostilities the very next moment. Too much blood has already been spilled on both sides. It is time for a change of tactics and the same-as-usual cycle of violence.

Somehow, the Zionists mistook Palestinians for the murderous Nazis. They need to realize that if they HAVE to seek revenge - it should be from the Germans and not the Palestinians.

The number of Jews well settled and well established in the United States is far greater than the Jewish population in Israel. All Jews have a right to live in peace and lead normal, respectul and productive lives. Everyone knows that that has not happened in almost 60 years. Why not try something different. How about settling all the Jews in the United States or maybe in Germany. How about giving them a choice to pick either Europe or the United States. All the billions spent on slaughtering the Palestinians every year can be better used in creating a modern, peaceful homeland for the resettled Jews so that they can live and flourish in peace. I think they deserve nothing less.

Why wouldn't the peace loving Khan propose for Jordan and other Arab nations to coordinate their effort to cloth, feed , educate, create jobs for Palestinian refugees ( as Israel did for hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees expelled from the Arab territories at the different stages of creation of the State of Israel), rather than give them warfare and disseminate hateful propaganda . It seems that this might be a good solution for Arab nations to embrace their brothers, rather than to push them on the edge, and use them as a tool for eliminating the Israeli state.

To reply to Stefano's reply to my reply:

I find the argument that the only Palestinian state agreeable to Israel would be a "fractionalized collection of cantons" to be unconvincing. I've heard Israel-bashers claim that that was all Israel offered at Camp David/Taba in 2000, and I've never been convinced. Israel offered something like 95 - 96% of the West Bank + offsetting adjustment of the Green Line (so that Israel could retain the largest settlement blocs that are close to the Green Line). Any proposal that offers 95% of the West Bank simply cannot be a collection of isolated "cantons" by simple geometry. I haven't read it, but my understanding is that Dennis Ross's book on the subject confirms the fact that Israel's territorial offer at Camp David/Taba in 2000 was serious. Arafat walked away without making a counteroffer and started the 2nd Intifada.

I have lived in Israel, and I have visited there recently. All the Israelis I have spoken with essentially have become exasperated with the situation. In effect, they are emotionally throwing up their hands and saying "we don't want to be in the West Bank; let's at least just have a 'separation' if we can't have a full peace; we don't want to occupy the Palestinians (and thereby be targets); let's build a separation wall until such time as the Palestinians are willing to live in peace and agree to stop trying to kill us."

I am convinced from such conversations that Israel would be quite willing to give up nearly all of the West Bank (modulo those above-mentioned settlement blocs), leaving far more than a network of disconnected cantons.

It is fine to call for the US to act as a mediator, but it if one side is committed to the destruction of the other, a just and fair settlement is by definition impossible. Just because the Palestinians "have no bargaining chips" other than a continued nonacceptance of Israel's right to exist, but by continuing to play this "chip" they convince Israelis that they're simply not serious about ever making peace.

As for a "right of return" ... Israelis I've spoken to are fine with a Palestinian right of return to the Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, but not to Israel. I can't imagine that this will ever happen. The refugees of 1948 left in the course of a war that Arab countries started with the expressed intention of genocidally murdering all Israelis, and then they were forced to live in the squalor of refugee camps and denied entry into mainstream society of these Arab neighboring countries. Many of the villages they left no longer exist. Consider all the epic movements of populations during WWII ... which of them now expects a return to the status quo ante from 60 years ago? Can the Jews (the ones who weren't killed and now live in Israel or the States) go back to Poland? or Hungary? or Lithuania? Do you think the Poles or Hungarians or Lithuanians will let them take back the homes they (or their ancestors) were forced to leave? What of the Germans who were forced out of Eastern Europe after the war? What of all the Jews who were forced from their homes in Arab countries all across north Africa and the middle east in the early 1950s, notably Iraq, Morroco, and Yemen? Should they get to go back to their ancestral homes and reclaim the property they were forced to leave behind?

I agree completely with Khan. Let the Palestinians have modern weapons to fight against Israel. They worked so well in the past for the Egyptians, Syrians, and Jordanians. If they actually were foolish enough to tangle mano a mano Israel could actually end the fighting once and for all and get on with must be the most unsuccessful ethnic cleansing in the history of the world. Modern democratic nation states (sorry got to include the "zionist" entity) are always stymied by asymmetrical warfare. Look at Vietnam, Algeria, Lebabnon,Iraq. Hamas wants the sticks against the F-16s. Also please stop whining about "free" bullets. The Israelis pay those loans back and keep thousands of Americans employed in the arms industries so the aid is not going away soon. I ask Khan one question. Do you think if Hamas had a WM they would detonate it in Tel-Aviv? I think the answer is yes in a heartbeat. Well you and I know that Israel has many and they have not set one off in Khan Younis or Ramallah. Why is that?

I agree completely with Stefano. Rather than seriously negotiating with the Palestinians--and therefore dealing with loss of the WB and its 200K "settlers"--Israel would rather "negotiate" with the US, which is really mutual pleadings to not make the other side look too bad while maintaining the status quo. The result is the continuing brutal occupation and violence to maintain and expand the so-called settlements. (If you doubt the brutality, check the Israeli human rights group btselem.org .) Further, I agee with Khan, that the best solution may be the "one-state solution"--afterall, Muslims, Christians, and Jews lived in peace in that region for hundreds of years. If Israel is determined to be the "Jewish Democracy" then it is incumbent on them to come to an equitable solution with the natives--which means as well the US must stop indulging Israel.

It should be clear to anyone reading several of the Zionist posts above that this mentality of psuedo-super power felt by a certain section of Israelis comes from a constant supply of US dollars and free supply of fighter planes, tanks and bullets from the US every year. Without this free money and free ammunition, Israel would have been vanquished a long time ago.

The equation would rapidly change if the Palestinians also started receiving the same level of equipment and an Airforce, say based in Jordan (which has Palestinians in majority). Also, if the American tax payers demand an end to their hard earned money ending up as bullets inside the bodies of innocent civilians, the equation will change. Israel owes its existance to the US. It is not unusual in History for equations to change.

If the Israelis want to live in peace, they will HAVE to change their current BUTCHER mentality and think in more human terms. Similarly, the Palestinians need to change their mind-set and immediately stop glorifying the suicide bombers who target innocent civilians. No one can enter Heaven with blood of the innocent on their hands.

Let there be mutual respect, accomodation and let love flow freely. If that happens, Israelis and the Palestinians might not even need to live in seperate states. The next generation might be able to live in peace side-by-side as equal citizens.

to Peter's comment, it is true that if the extremist fringes of the Palestinian militancy gave up violence they would have a state of their own almost immediately; but that's a gross -and possibly disingenuous- oversimplification of the current situation. The ensuing Palestinian state would be a fractionalized collection of cantons, hardly worthy the definition of "state". Other issues on the table are often conveniently forgotten or written off altogether, such as the right of return, the prized possession of the aquifers over the Green Line, control vs. sovereignty, etc.
Factually, the Palestinian side has no bargaining chips, besides the recognition of Israel and the prospect of being a peaceful neighbor. Israel, on her side, will never consent to a peace agreement that requires returning to the pre-1967 borders. Uprooting two hundred thousand settlers would be a catastrophic proposition. Every Israeli PM knows that that's the only chance at achieving a negotiated peace, but it is also a guaranteed political suicide. That's why it is imperative that the United States be the mediator in the resolution of the conflict; a respectable outside agent of diplomacy with unparalleled leverage can coerce both sides into steps that either would not be willing or able to undertake on their own. But there comes the biggest obstacle to a fair-handed US intervention: the disproportionate influence of the pro-Israel lobby that steers both the domestic public discourse and foreign policy toward tactical Israeli advantages, at the expense of a longer-lasting strategic solution that would ultimately bring a glimmer of hope to ending this bloodshed.

I don't quite understand the logic of Mr. Melman's argument. Palestinian terrorists kill and kidnap Israeli soldiers, and therefore Israel should make concessions?

Israel has just unilaterally withdrawn from the Gaza strip, and Olmert has spent serious political capital to push for his plan to unilaterally withdraw from nearly all of the West Bank. The Palestinian response has been to rain hundreds (perhaps over a thousand) rockets on Israel towns and continue sporadic terror attacks. The PA government claims to not be directly responsible, but on the other hand, it has done nothing to stop these attacks, and praises them when they occur. But the PA can't have it both ways - either it is a responsible government or it's a terrorist organization. If Israel followed Mr. Melman's advice, it would be clearly demonstrating that terrorist attacks in fact are an effective means to achieve political goals, which obviously only would serve to encourage Palestinian terrorist groups to conduct more such attacks.

If the Palestinian Authority would recognize Israel's right to exist, disavow violence, and stop trying to kill Israelis, they would have a state at once.

Mr. Melman, would you consider calling on the PA to do so, in the best interests of the Palestinian people?

I agree with MF's comments and would also like to ask how the release of Barghouti would benefit Hamas. It would legitimize Barghouti, empower secular Fatah and it would show that, when it counts, Hamas needs to lean on Fatah people to make effective deals. How would that benefit Haniyhe? Moreover, Barghouti has been convicted on 5 counts of murder as well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marwan_Barghouti - how could he be a solid Palestinian leader?

Yossi please feel free to respond, you might enter a hornets nest on a pulblic forum like this but you certainly shouldn't feel called upon to engage all the issues raised in this forum. Also you can use a pseudonym or post anonymously like myself, perhaps we can have an interesting debate. That's apparently the whole point of postglobal, so far I've seen very little to indicate that the response from the reader-posters is being engaged. But we've been given the opportunity now, we can really expose some ore lodes here instead of hewing around the rock.

Yossi, you might think that these are the harsh responses from amateur politicians, but Olmert has a very good understanding of the subject matter and Peretz has been a very strong proponent of a negotiated peace. Both their reputation and their current reaction indicates how seriously they take this act of abduction and double unprovoked murder (there is no declaration of war so it wasn't an act of war). Both Yitzhak Rabin and Ariel Sharon would probably have done the same. It is far more likely that this action of Quassam militants on Israeli soil was meant to undermine the agreement between Abbas and the Hamas political leadership, achieved on the same day, to push it out of the news cycle so that there would be no mention of any rapprochement towards Israel. You haven't mentioned Syria or their machinations at all in your posts and that does make me wonder how privvy you are to what exactly drives the agenda of the armed wing of Hamas? You need to mention how importantly Syria features in this story; Maybe Olmert and Perez should have done more than order a flyover of Assad's Mediterranean palace to fix that relationship into the historical perspective?

I find myself in agreement with everything Melman says and yet believe it to be utterly ridiculous. First, just on the issue of releasing Marwan Barghouti: whatever you feel about the wisdom and justice of his trial, he was in fact convicted of certain crimes in a court of law. Under what law would the government even have the authority to simply release him? It could clearly do so for the hundreds of "adminstrative detainees" but I don't see how you do it for Barghouti. Second, I am not convinced that Haniye has the power to secure the release of Cpl. Shalit (which, I realize, is also an argument against what Israel is doing). One of the things that has animated this whole crisis is both Mashaal and Haniye saying "I didn't do it." So, if not, how do they make the deal to release him?

Someone at the Post please correct the spelling of "Isreal" that appears above his photo. It makes your paper look ridiculous.

Would Harold's personal attack on Mr. Melman qualify to be removed from this post? Rather than name-calling, let us encourage analysis and dialouge. Thank you Washington Post for providing this space for exchange of ideas and some cool thinking - Mr. Melman's seems to be a good example of that. There is nothing wrong in having differences of opinion. Let ua all engage in civil discourse and in random acts of kindness.

You unfortunately picked one of the many Haaretz oblivious lefties who, while Israelis were being blown up by the hundreds, was still saying Yasser Arafat only wanted peace. So what does this "expert" suggest? That in return for the one soldier, Israel release the main architects for the Palestinian slaughter of hundreds during the last intifada; that they talk to the "moderate" Hamas PM who only wants to wipe Israel off the face of the earth and will not recognize its existence; and stop going after Palestinian terrorists. And in return Israel gets.....a maybe ceasefire and a maybe stop of rocket bombings of Israel proper. Huh??? And what if the other terrorists do not go along as they have yet to do no matter how many cease fires the PA calls? It is this type of thinking that led to Israel giving weapons to the very people now using the weapons to kill Israelis. Nor does it match even recent history as Israel is rewarded for leaving Gaza by a bombardment of over 1000 rockets and Hamas is elected.

Mr. Melman's analysis sounds so rational and reasonable. Unfortunately, those two qualities are absent from any discussion in this conflict. One wonders what actually is ever discussed by negotiators between these two camps. And the conflict is totally lop-sided. Stones and sticks against F-16s and Tanks. A day hardly goes by when some Palestinians are not killed in their own homeland. I think the occupying party needs to really think through and re-eveluate what kind of human beings they really are? It seems in the long run Israel is heading towards self-annihilation. No nation can behave like butchers collectively and remain sane for long.

Of course your suggestions pressuposes both a trust of the Hamas on the side of the Israelis as well as this trust being justified. Unfortunately, neither of this things seems to be the case.