"We are approaching the point where more and more Palestinians will say: we have been won over. We agree with [National Union leader Avigdor] Lieberman. There is no room for two states between the Jordan and the sea. All that we want is the right to vote. The day they do that, is the day we lose everything. Even when they carry out terror, it is very difficult for us to persuade the world of the justice of our cause. We see this on a daily basis. All the more so when there is only one demand: an equal right to vote....The thought that the struggle against us will be headed by liberal Jewish organizations who shouldered the burden of the struggle against apartheid in South Africa scares me."

Olmert makes important point, that Israel feels that its future as a Jewish state is threatened by a "demographic time-bomb"; that if they fail to impose their own unilateral settlement on the Palestinians---by seizing land and creating de facto borders--Jews will eventually become a minority in Israel. This's the fear that's driving the policy, not racism or terrorism.

Olmert adds:

"Had I believed that there is a real chance of reaching an agreement, I would have recommended making an effort. But that is not the case. The choice we will be facing will be between less than a Geneva Accord -- which means a return to the 1967 border, the crushing of Jerusalem, and a struggle to our last breath to ward off the international pressure to absorb hundreds of thousands of refugees into the shrinking State of Israel -- and a comprehensive unilateral move, and I stress the word comprehensive. Through such a move we will define our borders, which under no circumstances will be identical to the Green Line and will include Jerusalem as a united city under our sovereignty."

Olmert is merely implementing Ariel Sharon's policy of "disengagement" which cuts off all real dialog with the Palestinians and imposes a unilateral settlement. That's why Carter has been treated so brusquely; his trip just draws attention to the intransigence of Israeli policy.

Olmert's statement is illuminating in many respects and helps to clarify the profound differences between Judaism and Zionism; the expansionist political ideology of the Israeli hard-right. Former Knesset member and peace activist Uri Avnery made this same point in an article last week in counterpunch:

"The real Zionist vision does not recognize any maps. It is a vision of a state without borders - a state that expands at all times according to its demographic, military and political power. The Zionist strategy resembles the waters of a river flowing to the sea. The river snakes through the landscape, goes around obstacles, turns left and right, flowing sometimes on the surface and sometimes underground, and on its way takes in more springs. In the end it reaches its destination.

That is the real agenda, unchanging, hidden, conscious and unconscious. It does not need decisions, formulations or maps, because it is encoded in the genes of the movement. This explains, among other things, the phenomenon described in the report of senior prosecution lawyer Talia Sasson on the settlements: that all the organs of the establishment, the government and the military, without any official coordination but with miraculously effective cooperation, acted to set up the "illegal" settlements. Every one of the thousands of officials and officers who spent decades involved in this enterprise knew exactly what to do, even without receiving any instructions.

That is the reason for David Ben-Gurion's refusal to include in the Declaration of Independence of the new State of Israel any mention of borders. He did not intend for a minute to be satisfied with the borders fixed by the United Nations General Assembly resolution of November 29, 1947. All his successors had the same approach. Even the Oslo agreements delineated "zones" but did not fix a border. President Bush accepted this approach when he proposed a "Palestinian state with provisional borders" - a novelty in international law." ("Hidden Agenda: Manifest Destiny and Israel", Uri Avnery; counterpunch)

Clearly, if Avnery's summation is accurate, then peace is not possible and Carter is wasting his time. But, according to various surveys, the Israeli public is no more ideological than Americans. For example, following the death of Yasser Arafat, Mahmoud Abbas became President of the Palestinian Authority. A poll was conducted in Israel which showed that 80% of Israelis wanted a "negotiated settlement" to resolve the main issues. They believed they had "partner in peace" in Abbas. The will of the people, however, was subverted by far-right members of the ruling establishment (Likud and Labor) who have no interest in peace but seek only to continue the present policy.

Hamas position on the central issues is typically muddied in the western press, but there are strong indications that they have abandoned terrorism to pursue a political track. Hamas hasn't deployed any suicide bombers since the elections nearly two years ago. Shouldn't Bush and Olmert take that into consideration when deciding whether Hamas is serious about ending the fighting?

In his article "Understanding the Direction of the New Hamas Government" Lt. Col. Jonathan Halevi states:

The new Hamas prime minister, Ismail Haniyeh, has presented toned-down messages regarding the resolution of the conflict. In his words, Hamas "is not hostile to the Jews," adding that Hamas "is not interested in throwing them into the sea." Hamas did not want "blood(shed)," and "has no interest in a vicious cycle of violence." In an interview with CBS News, Haniyeh stressed that he had never sent anyone to carry out a suicide bombing and that even if one of his sons were to ask his permission to perpetrate one, he would not consider granting it. In an article for the British Guardian entitled "A Just Peace or No Peace," Haniyeh stated: "We in Hamas are for peace and want to put an end to bloodshed...and offer our hands in peace" based on complete withdrawal from the territories and Israeli absorption of millions of Palestinians into Israel.

Haniyeh has repeatedly said that he would like to resume negotiations.

On Friday, the Washington Post published an op-ed by Hamas Foreign Minister, Mahmoud al-Zahar which laid out the position of Hamas. It is well worth reading in its entirety. Al Zahar, whose 21 year old son, Hussam, was tragically killed three months ago in an Israeli air-strike, was studying finance and planned to become and accountant. Al Zahar lost another son and a son in law in 2003.

Al Zahar: "President Jimmy Carter's sensible plan to visit the Hamas leadership this week brings honesty and pragmatism to the Middle East while underscoring the fact that American policy has reached its dead end. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice acts as if a few alterations here and there would make the hideous straitjacket of apartheid fit better. While Rice persuades Israeli occupation forces to cut a few dozen meaningless roadblocks from among the more than 500 West Bank control points, these forces simultaneously choke off fuel supplies to Gaza; blockade its 1.5 million people; approve illegal housing projects on West Bank land; and attack Gaza City with F-16's, killing men, women and children. Sadly, this is "business as usual" for the Palestinians."

Al Zahar claims that Israel has tried to negate the results of what was called "the fairest election ever held in the Arab Middle East" and used it to wage a new war against the people of Gaza; a war that was approved by the Bush White House.

"Now, finally, we have the welcome tonic of Carter saying what any independent, uncorrupted thinker should conclude: that no "peace plan," "road map" or "legacy" can succeed unless we are sitting at the negotiating table and without any preconditions."

Al-Zahar then presents a litany of Palestinian grievances mixing in a bit of the conflict's bitter history:

"Our movement fights on because we cannot allow the foundational crime at the core of the Jewish state -- the violent expulsion from our lands and villages that made us refugees -- to slip out of world consciousness, forgotten or negotiated away. Judaism -- which gave so much to human culture in the contributions of its ancient lawgivers and modern proponents of tikkun olam -- has corrupted itself in the detour into Zionism, nationalism and apartheid."

A "peace process" with Palestinians cannot take even its first tiny step until Israel first withdraws to the borders of 1967; dismantles all settlements; removes all soldiers from Gaza and the West Bank; repudiates its illegal annexation of Jerusalem; releases all prisoners; and ends its blockade of our international borders, our coastline and our airspace permanently. This would provide the starting point for just negotiations and would lay the groundwork for the return of millions of refugees. Given what we have lost, it is the only basis by which we can start to be whole again." (Washington Post)

These are difficult issues and will require intensive negotiations before they can be resolved. But the present policy provides no path for resolution or reconciliation; just more animosity and bloodshed. The Bush-Olmert plan is a failure; the killing has only increased.

Carter's trip is a reminder that there's still a way out of this mess that doesn't involve slaughtering each other's children.