the road map. so ariel sharon is calling for an abandonment of the palestinian insistence on the 'right of return' as a condition, not for the final peace settlement in 2005, but for israel's initial movement forward on the road map. that is to say, for israel to even endorse the road map, the palestinian refugees [around 4 million, including the family of those of the 1948 diaspora] must give up their demand for the 'right of return' to the homes from which they were evicted 1948 and shortly after. sharon's reason is that the return of palestinian refugees would be a de facto destruction of israel through a dilution of its jewish character. leaving completely aside the issue of whether a 'jewish character' is an issue of state population controls, even with the return of 4 million refugees to their homes in israel, the arab israeli population will not constitute a majority [according to the figures i've been able to dig up - correct me if i'm wrong].

of course, the refugee issue was supposed to have been addressed during the final peace conference in 2005 with "an agreed, just, fair, and realistic solution". but it's clear that, even before sharon's current demand, israel was never prepared to accept this part of the peace plan. at the behest of israel, there are no references to un security council resolution 194, which asserts the right of return of the 1948 refugees:
the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the governments or authorities responsible.
israel's objection to 194 is that it predetermines the outcome of the refugee solution by calling for the right of return. however, israel refuses to acknowledge its role in the creation of the refugees - indeed, it refuses to even *consider* the palestinian diaspora population as a refugee population - and in doing so predetermines the outcome of the solution by declaring that no problem exists in the first place for a solution to address.

notwithstanding israel's intransigence, there are a huge number of problems with the road map as it stands.

first, the road map calls for a freezing of all israeli settlement building - including natural growth - and a dismantling of all settlement outposts built since march 2001. on the surface, this is a good thing. however, there are some important considerations:
[a] obviously, this does not include any dismantling of settlements built before march 2001, which includes those built during the very beginning month or so of sharon's leadership, in addition to those built under barak, netanyahu, etc and so on. these settlements were built in such a way as to undercut the viability of a palestinian state by cross-cutting palestinian areas through roads and highways, monopolizing water sources, etc. these settlements WILL REMAIN.
[b] israel has always argued that any peace solution includes its right to provide for the safety and security of its people, whether in israel proper or in the settlements. in practice, this means the deployment and redeployment of the idf, protected roads and highways for israeli use only, walled enclaves, checkpoints, etc etc. the continued existence of settlements will undoubtedly be accompanied by the continued insistence by israel on its right to provide security, undermining any sort of palestinian effort to consolidate its sovereignty over the west bank and gaza. it should be understood that a continued israeli military and security presence in areas which should be under the authority of palestinians is the same thing as the CONTINUED OCCUPATION of the west bank and gaza by israel.

there's also the issue of parallel development - i.e., progress is supposed to be made by the israelis and palestinians on a parallel basis. however, sharon has declared that he will not begin dismantling settlements until the palestinians end violence against israel. i've got some gripes with this as well - whereas the settlement-building can be attributed to israeli policy [and sharon et al in particular], palestinian violence is not attributable to *all* palestinians, or even to the palestinian authority. mahmoud abbas recently denounced violence, immediately after which hamas declared their intent to continue waging a violent campaign [of course, hamas does not recognize the existence of israel as legitimate, so there's no reason for them to accept the road map solution anyway - which suits israel nicely, considering they won't dismantle settlements unless the violence ends]. additionally, one of the reasons palestinians resorted to violence in the first place was that they were left with no political alternative to voice their grievances because of israel's policies. as a state-in-exile with a population mostly stuck in refugee camps, it's hard to gain concessions from an occupying power - let alone one with wmd's. the idf policies only serve to preserve the status quo of mutual violence. parallel development is a pipe dream, and the supporting reasons go on and on.

other problems i have [which i won't go into, but you are welcome to email me if you reeeaaalllyyy care about my opinion] - the issue of palestinian economic sovereignty, provisional borders, a 'quartet'-brokered deal [in the face of a history of bilateral u.s.-mediated negotiations which have *always* denied the legitimacy of international involvement] and quartet-monitored progress...

ok, here's a much more articulate op-ed piece that i agree with in large part. there's so much more i want to say but i run the risk of ranting so i'll leave it at this right now.