President Bush's roadmap seems to be destined to find its honorable place in the overflowing dustbin of Middle East peace initiatives. The decade old Oslo process is for all practical purposes dead. Is there an alternative, or is the cycle of violence an immutable fact which we Israelis must learn to live (or tragically, die) with?

Israel faces serious challenges. The number of Palestinians between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea is today close to 4 million (including the Israeli Arabs). The number of Jews is ca. 5 million. Demographics seriously threaten the Jewish and democratic character of the State of Israel. Israel is surrounded by hostile or semi-hostile States. The exterior military threat to Israel is an existential one. There is a lack of personal safety for the citizens of Israel. A State, also for the short term, must defend its citizens against terror. There is an enormous social and economic gap between the citizens of Israel, who enjoy a Western World standard of living and the Palestinian population which lives in the squalor typical of destitute third world countries.

To "solve" these problems, the rational Israeli left which has despaired of "Peace Now" is promoting the concept of "Separation Now". Israel should withdraw from the disputed territories. A Palestinian state surrounded by a fortified wall should be formed, Palestine for the Palestinians, Israel for the Jews.

Most rational leftists realize that this Palestinian State will not be peace loving. Separation though, will supposedly "solve" the demographic problem. Israel, within the 1967 borders will have five Jews to every Arab. Israel's withdrawal from the disputed territories will significantly reduce Arab animosity to the State. The casus belli for the destruction of the State of Israel will no longer exist and the existential military threat against Israel will be eliminated. The construction of a fortified border between Israel and Palestine will remove the threat of suicide bombers.

This pessimistic scenario is simplistic. It is not at all clear that separation will remove the animosity of the Arab world to Israel. Egypt is arming itself to its teeth. The animosity to Israel within Egypt has been ever increasing. Even at the height of euphoria surrounding the Oslo accords, Israeli-Egyptian relations could only be aptly described as a cold war. The economic boycott of Israel was never removed by Saudi Arabia and it has been renewed by other Arab States.

Israel’s military retreats have not brought much stability. The withdrawal damaged Israel’s deterrence capabilities. Arguably, Arafat interpreted the withdrawal as a weakness, convincing him that he would get more from Israel by using force then by negotiations. How then will Israel's withdrawal from the disputed territories be interpreted by the Arab world? Won't it convince them to continue and pursue violent means against an ever weakening Israel?

Creation of a hostile Palestinian State effectively removes the ability of Israel to fight terror. A generation of Palestinians has been brainwashed by the PLO and others to hate Israel and sacrifice themselves for the sake of Jihad. An independent Palestinian State, which is not viable economically or socially, which is run by a PLO dictatorship will, in the least, continuously agitate against Israel. Separation cannot prevent the shooting of rockets onto Israeli territory. Ben Gurion airport and other strategic targets will be exposed, and what then? How does Israel confront a Palestine which is armed to the teeth and utilizes terror as a means to achieve its political objectives? The probability of a renewed conflagration becomes not negligible. Faced with terror, Israel might have no choice but to reoccupy the Palestinian State. This is a risk that Israel cannot take.

Separation will further exacerbate the economic gap between the Palestinian and Israeli population. Within a few years, Israel will have an internationally recognized neighboring state with a population equal to or greater than its own, but limited to a fifth of the area. Demands from the Israeli Arab population combined with humanitarian organizations under the auspices of the United Nations, will replace the occupation mantra, leveled at Israel today, with a poverty and apartheid mantra. Israel will be required to make further concessions, and the consequences can then be existential.

There was a fundamental difference of opinion between Israel's most notable peacemakers. Like present day separatists, Yitzchak Rabin believed that solution of the "Palestinian problem" is the key. His Oslo accords were predicated on the assumption that resolution of the Palestinian problem will lead to peace between Israel and most of its neighbors. This was a serious error, especially evident from Egypt's role in the destruction of the Oslo process. During the Taba talks, it was Egypt who urged Arafat not to agree to Barak's peace initiative. It was Egypt, who in gross violation of the 1978 Camp David accords, allowed the Hamas and PLO to use the Egyptian border with Gaza to import huge quantities of arms.

The cruel truth is, that apart from Israel and Turkey and perhaps hopefully Iraq, the Middle East is ruled by dictatorships, each of which for their own reasons, are interested in perpetuating the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. The regional Arab dictatorships did not encourage Arafat to keep his part in the Oslo accords. The Saudis never stopped funding Hamas. Iran, Iraq and Libya did not even make a pretense of going along with the Oslo process.

Menachem Begin's strategy was diametrically opposed to Rabin's. He believed that the key to stability in the Middle East is a normalization of Israel's relations with its Arab neighbors. For Begin, the Palestinians were pawns in the hands of the Arab dictatorships. Begin believed that his peace agreement with Sadat would be a first step which would really change the Middle East. If true peace (not cold war) would reign between Israel on the one hand, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the Arab Emirates, then the Palestinian problem would be solved.

The key then, is not separation now but rather a vision of peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors. This would remove the existential threat to Israel from without. It would imply that Arab governments stop funding and other support for terror organizations, which would be viewed as a threat which is to be eliminated. This would lead to a personal security for both Israelis and Palestinians which is not predicated on roadblocks, curfews and targeted assassinations. It would enable normalization of relations between Israel and the Palestinian population, leading to commerce and jobs for the Palestinians and a return to the healthier economics of the pre-Oslo era.

Presently, the major roadblock on the way to such normalization is not the Palestinian problem. The root cause is the dictatorial nature of the Arab world. The huge Arab military expenditures are due only to their dictatorial character. It forces these countries to create an artificial and false exterior enemy – Israel. The cycle of violence originates with the Arab states not with the Palestinians. The cycle can be broken only if the root cause is removed. In democracies, national interests are usually of supreme importance. When interests imply that peace is better than war, then peace agreements will be signed and enforced. A democratic State does not invest huge sums on inflated militaries only for the sake of fighting someone else’s war.

Is a democratic vision realistic? Arab economies are shrinking. According to a World Bank estimate, the total exports of the Arab world (barring oil) amounts to less than those of Finland, a country of five million inhabitants. Poverty and misery are on the increase and one may assume that a day will come, not too far in the future, when a civil revolution will also reach the Arab world. Already today there are signs of instability in Iran. Arabs will demand equality, human rights and democracy instead of cruel dictatorship and usurpation of the majority by an elitist corrupt minority. One should add to this the changing balance of energy usage, slowly but surely, the Western world is freeing itself from the stranglehold of Arab oil. This transition will significantly reduce Western support for the Arab dictatorships.

Present circumstances do indicate that there is a hope for formation of a democratic Iraq. True peace between Israel and Iraq, would be an excellent beginning, which could then bring into its fold countries such as Jordan. A democratic axis which includes Israel, Jordan and Iraq would be a revolutionary change in the Middle East scene, precisely the type of change underlying Begin's Weltanschauung.

The collapse of Communism or the terror of September 11, which were not predicted by anyone, is a lesson in humility. We cannot predict future events with any certainty. But we must do our best and strive to bring about positive change. A historic Arab democratization process can lead to the resolution of differences between Israel and the Palestinians. Whether this will be in the form of a democratic independent Palestinian State, or a confederation with Jordan, or perhaps a different structure is impossible to predict, nor is it important at this point in time. What is important is that a democratic Arab world will inexorably lead to a deep understanding that Israelis and Palestinians must coexist peacefully and respectfully.

It is this vision which presents especially to the German nation a challenge. Germany, if it only wants to, can present the Jewish people with what it needs most - a roadmap to democracy and peace in the Middle East.