[Chris Alger]

"I don't think your parallel examples are fitting; neither the citizens nor the government of the USA refused to recognize the USSR's right to exist."

Of course they did, or do you believe that President Reagan believed in the rights of "Evil Empires" to exist? Or that the USSR should never have negotiated with Reagan until he renounced that phrase? When Yeltsin was in the process of breaking up the Soviet Union, did anyone in the US say this was regretable for the reason that the USSR's "right to exist" was imperiled? It was pretty much the opposite. Of course, for the reasons I mentioned, the particular issue never arose because it doesn't exist outside the realm of anti-Palestinian propaganda.

"The PLO and the PA say one thing, but actions say another--Arafat appears to support terror even while denouncing it."

No, he supports resistance to an illegal occupation, just as you would do if a foreign country invaded your own, which Israel refuses to distinguish from terrorism inside Israel proper. Arafat has never supported or defended the killing of Israeli civilians for its own sake. (Now watch: someone is going to pull up some Arafat quote about conquoring Israel as proof to the contrary).

"And it should be obvious that the PA can't/won't provide the security guarantees it pledged to Israel."

The PA is not responsible for the security of an invading army. No occupied government ever is. But consider the practical alternatives. Many months ago I asked how the PA could possibly improve Israel's performance of curtailing terrorism, given Israel's greater police and military resources and willingness to engage in torture and extrajudicial execution of terror suspects. I also asked how the PA could be expected to do anything that benefits Israel while Israel continues to randomly target its police and their facilities. No one to my knowledge has bothered to address these obvious points. Israel is far more capable of "locking up Hamas" as is Arafat. It refrains from doing so because there are limits to the degree it can escalate the conflict. In the meantime, it recognizes no such limits on the PA, so it is free to issue open-ended demands that Arafat "do more" while Israel does nothing.

"Most germane to the article is this: The issue of whether Palestinians would be willing to accept a small state living in peace alongside Israel, or whether the the Palestinians would still violently push for the elimination of Israel and return of a Greater Palestine, is a crucial point, and one with massive implications regarding any hopes of lasting peace."

No, that is not the issue at all, any more than the issue of whether the Palestinian terrorism should stop depends upon Israel's "irrevocalble and final acceptance" -- to use Pipe's phrase -- of a Palestinian state. When two forces are at war while a diplomatic solution seems possible, it is absurd for one to say: you should think that we favor diplomacy even though we won't consider it until the other side accepts all of our demands and lays down its arms.

The first real issue is whether peace can be obtained through diplomacy. This is only possible when both sides are committed to a serious diplomatic process. Israel has never agreed to engage in any process leading to equal Palestinian sovereignty -- it expressly renounced it through Oslo I and its progeny -- regardless of whether the Palestinians continue fighting for Israel's abolition. Israel has refused to engage in any direct negotiations with the PA for two years, while the PA has (and the rest of the world) have been begging for it. Israel even refuses to consider a ceasefire in exchange for concessions of its own. Sharon's most recent offer was for the Palestinians to terminate all resistance to the occupation for a period of years -- ten years was the figure reported -- after which he would consider a limited form of autonomy. Israel alone remains irrevocably committed to obtaining its political goals through the use of military force. Nothing positive will develop until Israel's position changes, and Israel's position will not change as long as the US supplies the means necessary for Israel's commitment to violence.

The Palestinians want land, Israel purportedly wants peace. Imagine if Israel had an open offer for land but the Palestinian position was that they would not curtail any violent activities until some unspecified period of time until all issues concerning borders, refugees, water rights and so on had been completely resolved. Anyone believing that this position amounted to a committment to a peaceful solution would be guilty of self-delusion, just as those that believe that Israel is committed to peace are deluding themselves now.