From The Dark Pages Of Intifadah 2
NEW YORK, Feb. 25 (UPI) — The past 18 months of dehumanizing violence between Israel and the Palestinians might have forced Arafat to give up his demand for repatriation of the Palestinian refugees, a demand that torpedoed the Camp David negotiations in the summer of 2000. This critical shift in policy has begun to have a revitalizing effect on the Israeli peace now movement. These developments, if carefully nurtured by the United States, could finally usher in an agreement based on a two states solution.
It appears that the Palestinian Authority has concluded that unless it settles for the West Bank and Gaza and a part of Jerusalem as well as finding a "creative" solution to the refugee problem, other than repatriation, there will be no peace with Israel. Among the leadership the emerging consensus seems to be that while they have not figured out how to extract themselves from the current violent quagmire, to continue the violence is to self-destruct. This sentiment was enunciated by Dr. Sari Nusseiba, the Palestinian Authority's representative for Jerusalem Affairs, in his remarks to students at the Hebrew University and more recently at an Israeli peace rally: We [the Palestinians] cannot first ask for the West Bank and Gaza and then take over Israel by demographic means. In an Op Ed piece published by the New York Times on February 3, Arafat himself wrote, "The Palestinians are ready to end the conflict . . . negotiate freedom for the Palestinians, a complete end of the occupation, security for Israel and a creative solution to the plight of the refugees while respecting Israel's demographic concerns." Most recently, Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, in an interview with Thomas L. Friedman of the New York Times said that Saudi Arabia is considering proposing to Israel peace with the Arab world in exchange for an Israeli withdrawal from all territory it occupied in the war of 1967, without a hint about the repatriation of refugees.
Undoubtedly, the Israelis have ample reasons to remain skeptical about any such utterances. But then what, in fact, are the Palestinians' choices? Notwithstanding Israeli losses, everything the Palestinians have built and toiled for since the Oslo accords in 1993 has been virtually reduced to rubbles. By refusing former Prime Minister Barak's offer, Arafat committed a tragic mistake and just about every Palestinian leader knows that. He gambled and lost. Since then, Arafat has subjected his people to untold suffering, and leaving the situation unchanged will only bring about greater disaster tomorrow. Israel is fighting for survival, and the prospect of forcing its hand is nonexistent. Is it possible then that the Palestinians have finally recognized that the choice is between gradually being destroyed or relenting on the question of repatriation?
Poll after poll taken in Israel suggest, that the majority of Israelis would support the establishment of a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza as long as the Palestinians harbor no further claims against Israel. The onus falls on the Palestinians to make it abundantly clear that this is precisely what they mean by their modified position regarding the refugee problem. As Dr. Nusseiba has said, the Palestinians must regain the support of Israelis who still believe in coexistence on the basis of a two-states solution but who have been stung by the events of the past 18 months.
In mid-February Israel's foreign minister Shimon Peres advanced his own proposal to break the cycle of violence. His plan calls for a cease-fire to be followed by Israel's recognition of a 
Palestinian state over the roughly 42% of the West Bank and Gaza already under Palestinian control. Mr. Ahmed Aurei, the speaker of the Palestinian parliament who negotiated the plan with Peres, is seeking a letter from Peres, or the United States or the European union, explicitly stating that the final borders conform to those of June 4, 1967. Here too there is no mention of the Palestinian refugees. Although the plan has found in Israel lukewarm support, one thing, however, remains clear: it may just offer a beginning. Prime Minister Sharon does not seem to have a magic wand to end the bloodshed, and many Israelis are quickly reaching the point of exhaustion. They are sick and tired of burying their dead. Someone must capitalize on what cynically can be said is the positive aspect of what has emerged from the dark pages of Intifadah 2 and Israel's response to it.
However many more innocent Israelis and Palestinians –young and old, men and women– die, and whatever the destruction they continue to inflict on one another, the ultimate solution will probably change very little if anything. If the Palestinians have really abandoned their dream to "conquer" Israel by demographic means in exchange for an honorable peace agreement, as their leadership now seems to suggest, the United States must jump in and cement what might prove to be a breakthrough. However small the chances are for peace, and no matter how difficult and intractable the process might be, the United States can ill afford not to try.