Amending the Disengagement Plan is not the answer. Amending the Roadmap is.

I am dismayed that no one is attacking the Roadmap as the problem, or emphasizing Israel's fourteen conditions that accompanied its acceptance. To my mind, Bush did not deal with the conditions by agreeing to give "serious consideration" to them and is not entitled to consider that the Roadmap was thus accepted as it is. At best, it is a conditional acceptance. Now is the time, when Israel is being asked to reaffirm its commitment to the Roadmap, to affirm that its acceptance depends on the fourteen conditions being satisfied.

Better still, the Roadmap itself should be scrapped along with the rest of the Quartet. The United Nations, the European Union and Russia have been there to give weight to the claims of the Palestinian Authority, requiring Israel to accept the Saudi Plan, rather than to serve as a force to pressure the PA to honour its commitments or to make concessions for peace. They also have done nothing to ensure that the money they give to the PA goes only for sustaining the people and not for terrorism. Such actions inhibit the process rather than enable it.

If Bush wants Israel to be more forthcoming in following the Roadmap, he should declare his own new Roadmap that should contain the following:

1. The US alone should replace the Quartet. Presently the UN, EU and, to a lesser extent, Russia, give diplomatic and financial support to the "Palestinians", notwithstanding the latter's failure to live up to their commitments, their use of terror and their corruption. Their proper role is to assist and pressure the Palestinians to abide by their commitments. This, they have failed to do.

2. Land for land. All references to "land for peace", the Saudi Plan and the Madrid conference should be removed. What should remain are only UN Resolution 242 and Resolution 338. It should be clearly noted that the proper interpretation of these resolutions is that Israel is entitled to secure borders based on retaining parts of the West Bank and Gaza. Furthermore, it should acknowledge that demographic realities on the ground must be taken into account and that population exchanges, i.e., transfer of both Jews and Palestinians to their own side of the new border, should not be ruled out.

3. Negotiations to start only when the PA has met certain conditions laid out in Bush's June 2002 speech; namely, the end of incitement, new democratic government, total dismantling of terror infrastructure, etc. It is not enough that the PA commences to do so.

4. No right of return. A just settlement of the refugee issue will require the offsetting of claims by both Jewish and Arab refugees. Justice to be served by compensation alone.

5. All issues to be freely negotiated, meaning each side has the right to say "no" and to make no further concessions. At the moment, Israel is being forced to participate and to make concessions and that is not consistent with free negotiations. If this results in no agreement being achieved, so be it.

6. No settlement freeze. Israel should be entitled to build anywhere, as laid down by the Balfour Declaration and the British Mandate from the League of Nations and as permitted in Oslo. This is the best assurance that the Arabs will be flexible, because time is no longer on their side. To restrict this right is to say that there is no penalty for recalcitrance. That is a prescription for avoidance. To restrict this right is to unilaterally prevent Israel from doing what it is legally entitled to do.

7. No unilateral moves such as annexation, for a limited period, say two years. This would put additional pressure on the PA to make the best deal they can.

8. Jordan should become a party to Bush's Roadmap since it has a stake in what happens.

9. A Palestinian State should not be guaranteed. This should be an issue for final negotiations and not a foregone conclusion. It may be best for all concerned to attach those parts of the West Bank and Gaza that are agreed not to become part of Israel to Jordan. This would enable greater options in settling the refugees and achieving economic and administrative sustainability.

However, after meeting with King Abdullah of Jordan, Bush said:

"[...]I remain committed to the vision I laid out here in the Rose Garden on June 24, 2002, of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side-by-side in peace and security, and to the establishment of a Palestinian state that is viable, contiguous, sovereign and independent.

"[...]As I have previously stated, all final status issues must be negotiated between the parties in accordance with UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. And the United States will not prejudice the outcome of those negotiations. The Roadmap is the -- is the best path to realizing the two-state vision. That is why the Roadmap is the plan endorsed by the Palestinians, Israel, the United Nations, the European Union, Russia, the United States and many other nations. That's why my administration is committed to making it a reality."

These words must be read carefully. His commitment is to the June 2002 speech and not the Roadmap. To my mind, this is very instructive. I have great difficulty with the description of the Palestinian State as being "viable, contiguous, sovereign and independent." Each one of these adjectives creates a host of insoluble problems. Once again, he confirms that all final issues must be negotiated according to Resolutions 242 and 338. He specifically leaves out the Saudi Plan and 'peace for land', as in the Madrid Conference, which are in the Roadmap. This, too, is very important. The Roadmap he says is only a "path". Finally, he informs, he will not prejudice the negotiations. I take this to mean he will neither pre-determine the outcome, nor interfere with negotiations.

If my interpretation of his remarks is correct, I suggest Bush has already endorsed some of these points.

The Quartet is not the solution but is part of the problem, as explained above. The US is also part of the problem, because it is not willing to allow Israel to deal forcefully with Palestinian terror, it protects Yasser Arafat, it refused to remove reference to the Saudi Plan or the "right of return" in the Roadmap, it is demanding that settlements be abandoned or frozen prior to a final agreement, it doesn't impose consequences on the Palestinians for their terror or breach of commitments or corruption, and finally, because it forces Israel to make concessions in order to achieve American goals elsewhere in the Middle East. All these actions must be reversed.

Little wonder, then, that Israel is unwilling to buy a pig in a poke, or to use a Biblical reference, to sell its inheritance for a mess of pottage.