In these hot summer days Israel and the Palestinian leadership are carrying on negotiations fateful for the peace process, and the future of our peoples. Every citizen has a definite stand regarding these negotiations. Anyone you stop in the street can tell you what is the right thing to do and who is at fault for lack of progress. The only minor point that nobody seems to know definitely is what, if anything, is being negotiated.

In a democracy, citizens should be informed. Israel is a great democracy; accordingly we are well, or at least copiously informed. In the same paper, and on the same day, we can read that the Israeli government has softened its position on revision of the PLO covenant, and also that it definitely has not softened its position; that the main sticking point is refusal of the PLO to change the covenant; that the main sticking point is what body of the PLO should change the covenant; that the main sticking point is refusal of the PNA to turn over wanted terrorists.

We can hear on the radio that the main sticking point is the 3% of the territory that Israel wants to keep free of Palestinian building. We can read that the reason for this restriction is that the land is close to roads. We can read that this 3% will be definitely not be contiguous, and also that it will be contiguous; that it will be scattered throughout the West Bank and that, as a concession to the Palestinians, it will be concentrated in the Judean desert, and again, that it will not be in the Judean desert because Arik Sharon objects. We can read that the Israeli government announced that the Palestinians would be shown the maps during negotiations today, that Netanyahu promised his right-wing coalition partners that the Palestinians will not be shown the maps, and again that the negotiations will not take place at all and are rescheduled for tomorrow.

A more skeptically inclined analyst might see a lack of information in all these contradictory pronouncements, but some hard facts indeed emerge. First, everyone agrees that the Palestinians have not seen any maps yet. Since the negotiations are about a withdrawal or ‘redeployment,’ one would think that maps would be the first thing discussed. Thus, it is not clear what, if anything the negotiations were about until now.

Secondly, if the disputed 3% territory with the building restrictions can be moved around from one place to the other, how could it be a strategic necessity? If the restrictions are supposed to protect roads to settlements, will the roads - and the settlements - be moved to the Judean desert? Why must there be 3% of the land - any land that is returned anywhere in the West Bank - not a particular place - that is subject to building restrictions? Is this a matter of security, national interest or ballot-box interest of Bibi Netanyahu?

On the Palestinian side, we can read that Chairman Arafat promised hard liners that there would be no negotiations with the Israelis, but also that he empowered the PNA negotiating team to negotiate seriously with the Israelis. And, as usual, Chairman Arafat can be quoted, on a good day, as being in favor of peace and rapprochement on the one hand, and Jihad and reconquest of Yaffo and Haifa on the other.

So what is really happening? Both leaderships are not negotiating with the ‘other side.’ They haven’t been for a long time. Instead, they are trying to find favor with the ‘doves’ and ‘hawks’ in their own camp and also with the Americans. With so much at stake, both sides are fiddling away the time playing for public support.

Maps and legal issues are complicated, technical and boring, but everyone can understand that 13% is usually more than 10%, even in the Middle East., so that is made out to be the important issue. It doesn’t seem to matter if the extra 3% is the side of a ravine, if it is cultivated, arable or desert, or has oil or gold. Please understand that we are talking about 90 square miles. Both leaderships have convinced themselves, or at least their peoples, (remember - it is us we’re talking about here: our futures are at stake) that these 3% are vital to our nations, and that the issue of peace or war depends on who gets the 3%, and whether they are a nature preserve or a place to build housing. Both sides have convinced their peoples - us, that it is a matter of National Honor whether or not, and in which forum, the PLO revokes its covenant again.

We are all aware that the redeployment represents only one tiny step on the road to a workable solution. But if we do not take this tiny step, there will not be another one. Perhaps both sides have given up on peace. That would explain why our leaders have obscured the forest with a 3% tree. The Israeli government may feel secure in its tremendous military advantage. The Palestinians can be encouraged by the promised support of France, and now of Britain, for the state that they will declare if, as some hope, the negotiations fail. Anywhere else but the Middle East, it would be unnecessary to explain that such considerations are foolish. The real issues should be clear enough: peace and security for Israel, land and dignity for the Palestinians, versus war and suffering for everyone.

Maybe we should make the 3% into a big natural habitat zoo, and put the leadership of both sides in it. But we had better do it quickly - otherwise the land may be needed as a cemetery.

Ami Isseroff