To PM Netanyahu,

You gave a fine and resounding speech at the UN, full of the sound and fury of great principles, but signifying nothing, because the Israeli government is unwilling to implement those principles.

You said, "The option of violence must be totally discarded and permanently disavowed." This must apply to Palestinian terrorism, but it must equally apply to actions of ‘our side.’ This means, Mr. Netanyahu, that there must be no more house demolitions, and that settlers who damage Arab property will be punished. Every peace-loving person would be glad to see you put this policy into effect.

You went on to say, "The second principle of a durable peace is reciprocity." Quite true. Would you agree to live under the conditions of ‘self government’ that you offer the Palestinians? I wouldn’t. You said, "They enjoy the attributes of self-government." Indeed, they enjoy the "attributes" - the superficial signs - of self government, but not the essentials of sovereignty. They cannot decide for themselves where to build their houses, because Israeli soldiers (nonviolently, of course) destroy "illegally" built houses, and our government issues almost no permits for legal housing. They do not have ownership over their own land, because our government continues to expropriate land. They cannot trade freely with Jordan or Egypt, because of Israeli "security" restrictions.

A fundamental right of self government, Mr. Netanyahu, is the right to decide who can, and who cannot, live in your country. Zionists recognized the need for an independent state of Israel, because of the urgent need to guarantee the right of Jewish immigration. Yet the agreements that you laud have not granted the Palestinians the right to settle their refugees in their "autonomous region." They have attributes, but no rights. On the other hand, the Israelis have the right to settle people in Palestine. By the logic of reciprocity, the Palestinians should have the right to build settlement in the middle of Yaffo, guarded by PNA police, just as our people live in the middle of Hebron.

You said, "It can no longer be claimed that the Palestinians are occupied by Israel. We do not govern their lives." That is certainly news to the people who need to go through check posts to get from Jerusalem to Bir Zeit, or from Bethlehem to Ramallah. It is news to the Palestinians in Hebron too. Palestine, rather than the Palestinians, is what is occupied by Israel.

You said, "Remember: At its widest point Israel is all of 50 miles. And should it cede all of the West Bank, that distance would be reduced to the distance between this building and La Guardia Airport." The distance between Qalqilia or Nablus or Tulqarm and Tel Aviv will not change. If the Palestinians wanted to launch terrorist attacks from Qalqilia, they could do so now. The border near Kfar Saba is completely porous, as we know to our sorrow from the thousands of car thefts, yet there is no terrorist activity across this border.

You said, "An arbitrary, unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state ...would constitute a fundamental violation of the Oslo Accords. It would cause the complete collapse of the process..." If the Palestinians declare a state unilaterally, it would be indeed because they believed the process had collapsed, and not for an arbitrary reason. But what else are they to think, if you have been barely willing to give them another 13% of their land?

A Palestinian state would not automatically be a threat to Israel, unless it laid claim to lands on our side of the 1948 cease-fire line, or decided to substitute force for negotiations. U.N. resolution 181 decreed that there would be two states in this piece of land. We decry the fact that the Arabs states refused to honor it, so how can we try to prevent formation of a Palestinian state? The logical thing to do is to avoid a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state, by negotiating a bilateral agreement, not to wait for disaster and then make unilateral responses.

Of the Palestinian state, you said "...Such actions will inevitably prompt unilateral responses on our part." What are the unilateral responses Israel will take? You do not elaborate here, but you did elaborate to Mr. Rosenthal of the New York Times: "that would "collapse" the Oslo declarations and free Israel to take unilateral action itself -- such as annexing parts of the West Bank."

Before 1992 there was no peace process, but Israel did not annex the territories, because it is against international law to do so. What would give us that right now? In what way would such an action help Israeli security or prevent stationing of foreign troops or anti-aircraft guns in Palestinian territory?

You are right to warn that a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state would be bad for Israel, bad for the Palestinians and bad for peace. You have it in your power to prevent it, by offering the Palestinians a reasonable alternative. If you offer a reasonable alternative, and they refuse, you will have the entire nation behind you. Annexation of territories in the West Bank would also be bad for Israel, bad for the Palestinians and bad for peace.

A reasonable alternative must include an end to arbitrary unilateral house demolitions and a freeze on arbitrary unilateral land expropriation. Land expropriation is not vital to the security of Israel. The settlers in Yizhar are not guarding Israel against Iraqi missiles.

Mr. Netanyahu, leaders of both sides proclaim that they are for peace and decency and democracy and fair play and all the other good things, yet they continue to move inexorably toward violence and confrontation. It is time to start putting into practice what you preach. If the other side is not serious about peace, they will suffer the consequences. But we must make certain that it is not we who are at fault, before we send our sons and daughters off to fight another war.