The Peace Now report revealed that nearly 40% of land on which Jewish settlements sit is private land. It was confiscated from private Palestinian owners. This is in contrast to "state" land. The difference between "private" and "state" doesn't make a big difference for national Palestinian aspirations. The systematic confiscation by the Israeli occupying authorities of land originated from both ownerships aims to undermine the idea that the Palestinian state, if and when it is established, could be a viable entity. But it does make a legal difference. As an occupying force, Israel, from the international, legal point of view is the legal heir to land and property owned by the previous owner -- the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, which ruled the West Bank until 1967. Legally, though not morally, Israel has been entitled to use the state and public lands, according to its needs, without, however, changing or determining the final status of the lands. But it is illegal, immoral and corrupt to confiscate land from its private owners and hand it to new ones.

The Israeli colonizing campaign in the West Bank has witnessed several stages. First, after the Six Day War (1967) under Labor governments, it inherited state and public lands. Small parts of it were used usually for genuine state security needs. Military bases and posts were built on the land. By nature they were supposed to be temporary and handed over if a peace agreement would have been signed. The Arab states, though, refused to recognize Israel, to negotiate, and sign a peace treaty. After 1977 when the right wing Likud government led by Menachem Begin came to power, the policy changed. From now, the state land was not used any longer for "state security" needs. The land was given to private Jewish owners- organizations representing he extreme right religious zealots of the "Bloc of Faithful". They built on the land more and more settlements and slowly but surely with government's support, extended and expanded their areas, which were under their control. Since the early 1980', a third stage began. Private lands were confiscated from their Palestinian owners for supposedly "state and public needs". But in most cases, as the report shows -- the arguments given were flat lies. The confiscated land was appropriated not for public or security necessities but to accommodate the Jewish colonizing movement.

Yet, the colonizing policy is not irreversible. We saw from the dismantle of Jewish settlements a year ago in Gaza that if there is a strong and determined Israeli leader, like Premier Ariel Sharon, such a step is doable and can be repeated in the West Bank too.

The problem is, however, that Israeli and Palestinians policies and desires are incompatible. Like two parallels, they have never met. When Israel was generous and accommodating and ready to compromise - like in the 1967-1977 decade, the PLO still was carried away by inflamed rhetoric of destroying Israel and rejectionist attitude. When the PLO changed in the 1990's, Israel was not that generous and less ready to make concessions. And once again when Premier Ehud Barak, supported and encouraged by President Bill Clinton in Camp David 2000, was ready to reach a comprehensive and far reaching agreement with the Palestinians it was once again Arafat who said no. Instead Arafat instructed to launch a new round of violence - the second Intifada - and refueled the Israeli-Palestinian flames. This led to a new vicious circle of Palestinian suicide bombing attacks and Israeli targeted killings and aerial bombings and, more importantly, to the election of a Hamas government.

As I see it now, the number one problem is to ignite the peace process. To start talking. This can happen only if Hamas accepts the three conditions set by the Israeli government and the Bush administration and accepted by the "Quartet" (Russia, EU, UN and USA): to recognize the right of Israel, to stop terrorism and to honor agreements signed by previous Palestinian governments. But so far Hamas refuses to do it. In order to accept these conditions Hamas has to change its "spots" -- its manifesto and ideology; in other words, it has to change its very nature. Once it happens -- and at the moment I am very pessimistic, or shall I say, I'm rather realistic -- the land and the settlements would be a secondary obstacle. It will be very painful for Israel to dismantle more than 100 settlements and relocate and resettle 250,00 Jewish inhabitants. To do so Israel might face a "mini" civil war, but the majority of Israelis are ready to make the sacrifice and concession. It will be doable but one needs two for tango.