Ultimately I think that we lose part of our own moral outrage by focusing so exclusively on the middle east conflict at the expense of all others, and by making teh excuses we do. It undermines our own efforts to distance ourselves from the truly evil actions of terrorists worldwide who wrap themselves in our faith, when we turn a blind eye to the actions of the Palestinian movement which - it cannot be denied thouhg it is easy to explain - has broad support within the Palestinian community.

Ask yourself, muslims of the west. Were the Klu Klux Klan to run for election on a genuinely ideal domestic platform, of fair taxation, just foreign policy, religious tolerance, civil rights.. or heck even just promising to make the trains run on time and the electricity on 24/7, would we vote for them? I woud not. Yet that is the choice that the Palestinians made. Granted, I am not desperate, I am free. But we expect the onus of resolution to fall entirely upon the Israelis? It cannot. It will not. It takes two sides to maintain a status quo, and moral authority, once relinquished in bits and pieces, cannot so incrementally be regained.

It is absolutely true that the Israelis have fumbled the ball for peace as surely as it is true that Arafat did. Arafat was wise not to accept teh Barak peace plan, but he cynically tried to keep pressure on Isrrael by legitimizing terror attacks on civilians, which gave sufficient excuse to Sharon for unilateral action. Sharon himself directly undermined the Taba accords, choosing to play to his settler base. But these two men are gone from the scene now and the landscape is different. The Lebanon war, the US elections, the war in Iraq have changed the long term prospects so that there is near concensus that the old status quo - which the Bush Administration implicitly endorsed by its silence and lack of leadership - is not sustainable.

And it isn't as if peace is an intractable solution. In fact it is quite simple: resolution of the conflict requires genuine sacrifice by both parties. The ideal framework would be along the lines of the Taba accords and the King Abdullah proposal. It will require that the Palestinians abandon the right of return, and accept some form of financial recompense in its stead to only those displaced families whose property claims can be verified. It will require that Israel dismantle all settlements in the West Bank, and relocate the settlers. It will require that a administrative body with authority over joint issues such as water rights and transportation be established. It will require NATO security guarantees of Jerusalem as a open city, the capital of both nations. It will require peace through diplomacy with Syria, with Damascus granted economic trade rights, security guarantees, and teh return of the Golan Heights in return for total cessation of military and financial support for Hizbollah. It will require bilateral normalization of diplomatic relations with every Arab country. It woudl require Israel to eventually be invited to join the Arab League and begin to interact with its neighbors as a neighbor and member of the regional identity, not a Western satellite. It will require Arab nations to carry Israeli satellite television  as part of their media feeds and absolute sanitzation of all anti-Semitic rhetoric in their educational systems.

In short, it will require that both sides accept as an axiom the humanity of the other, build a regional identity, and foster economic and cultural links.

Or more succinctly, it will require abandoning old prejudices and grievances, and looking forward. And I state without reservation that the internal challenge - the greater jihad - is harder for the muslims here than it is for the jews. Which makes it all the more incumbent.