These are trying times we live in today indeed. I was not sure where to start to describe my feelings or in offering some kind of a simple explanation to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict that I have lived with all my life. I am now almost 50 years old.

I met Thomas Friedman at a dinner in Jeddah during his latest visit to Saudi Arabia and have been reading his articles before and after that meeting. I have noticed a marked difference in his opinions since he wrote his book, "From Beirut to Jerusalem" more than 12 years ago. I encourage everyone to go back and read this book, as it explains the Psyche of Israeli leaders of both sides of the political spectrum. I chose to quote one part that concludes that the Israeli government has never ever wanted peace and has always maintained a course of expansionist occupation of Palestinian land. American acquiescence and collaboration only encouraged such course that, in the opinions of intelligent and sane people of all faiths, would lead to the loss of innocent human life, disruption of family life causing irreparable damage, and destruction of property.

"To fully appreciate the reasons for Israel’s paralysis one must go all the way back to the birth of the nation. The Zionist Jews who founded Israel had three basic objectives in mind when they thought about the kind of state they wanted to build. They wanted to create a Jewish state, a democratic state, and a state that would be located in the historical homeland of the Jewish people — the land of Israel — which technically included all of Palestine from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River, and even some areas beyond, in what is today Jordan. In November 1947, when the United Nations offered the Jews roughly half this area for their own state, while promising the other half to the Palestinian Arabs, the Zionist leaders were forced to answer that fundamental question: What kind of nation do we want to be? David Ben-Gurion, then the leader of the Zionist movement in Palestine, did not shrink from clearly laying out the choice before the Jewish people and then building a constituency among them for the option he believed was most correct. Ben-Gurion essentially said in effect to his nation: ‘"In this world we can only have two out of three of our objectives. We are being offered a chance for a Jewish state and a democratic state, but in only part of the land of Israel. We could hold out for all the land of Israel, but if we did that we might lose everything. If we have to compromise on our objectives, let it be on obtaining all the land of Israel. We will settle now for half a loaf, and dream about the rest later."

"So between 1948 and 1967 Zionism lived, and even flourished, with two and a half of its goals satisfied. Israel was a Jewish state with a massive Jewish majority [just ask the 1948 Palestinian refugees in the Diaspora], it was a democratic state, and it was a state located in part of the land of Israel — but not all of it.

"Then came June 1967. Israel, in the course of the Six-Day War, occupied the West Bank and Gaza Strip, extending, in the process, Jewish control over virtually all the historical land of Israel originally sought b Zionism. From this moment on, Israelis again faced the monumental question: What kind of nation do we want to be? Once again, it could only have two out of three of its objectives. One choice was to keep all the land of Israel, including the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and to remain a Jewish state, but this could be done only by curtailing Israeli democracy. The only way Israel could permanently control the Palestinian inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be by physically suppressing them and ensuring that they were never given political rights. [Sounds familiar?]

"The second option for Israel was to annex the West Bank and Gaza and remain a democracy, but this could be done only by giving up the Jewish character of the state, because if the 1 million plus Palestinian Arabs then residing in the occupied territories were allowed to vote, along with the 500,000 Israeli Arabs, by early in the twenty-first century they would outnumber the Jews, if the same birth and emigration trends continued.

"The third option was for Israel to remain a Jewish and democratic state, but this could be done only by either getting rid of large areas of West Bankers and Gazans, in order to guarantee a Jewish majority well into the twenty-first century. Since the world would never tolerate [or would it?] a forced transfer by Israel of Palestinians from the occupied territories, this option really came down to relinquishing territory.

"So, on the seventh day of the Six-Day War, amid the jubilation and flag waving, a huge question again hung over the Israelis: Who were they? A nation of Jews living in all the land of Israel, but not democratic? A democratic nation in all the land of Israel, but not Jewish? Or a Jewish and democratic nation, but not in all the land of Israel?

"Instead of definitively choosing among those three options, Israel’s two major political parties — Labor and Likud — spent the years 1967 to 1987 avoiding a choice — not in theory, but in practice; not on paper, but in day-to-day reality. I arrived in Jerusalem expecting to find crosswinds, but instead I found no winds of change at all."

Friedman goes on to say, "The unspoken pragmatic understanding between Labor and Likud was temporarily disrupted by the Lebanon war. Although Likud Defense Minister Sharon presented the war as being about "peace for Galilee" it had little to do with that part of Israel. In going to Beirut, Sharon actually trying to solve the existential dilemma posed to Israeli society by the 1.7 million Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. He hoped that by destroying the Palestinians’ representative, the PLO, he could force those in the West Bank and Gaza to abandon their demands for an independent state and accept whatever limited autonomy Israel offered them, thereby making it possible for Israel to retain the West Bank forever without feeling guilty that it was depriving Palestinians of their right to self-determination. "‘Look,’ Sharon hoped to tell the world, ‘our Palestinians are ruling themselves. We can be Jewish, democratic, and still keep all the land of Israel, including the West Bank and Gaza. Who said you could have only two out of three?’ "The Lebanon invasion, therefore, reopened the fundamental divisions in Israel over the questions: What kind of society is Israel to become? What kind of values does it stand for? Is it going to be a Jewish South Africa, permanently ruling Palestinians in West Bank homelands, is it going to be a Jewish Prussia, trying to bully all of its neighbors, or is it going to be a state with borders that will be based solely on considerations of what will preserve a secure, democratic, and Jewish society at peace with its neighbors?"

Nothing has changed. Sharon is still pursuing his bloodstained path to an unrealistic dream of usurping the West Bank and Gaza Strip to create the Zionist "land of Israel". He will not take the hand of peace extended by the Arabs. America must take a deep look into its own heart and ask itself to answer some of the questions posed by Mr. Friedman some 12 years ago. Its daughter that has come of age is today an unruly bully in the region and breaking all the china in the store. The USA as the self-declared Global Policeman must restrain her and make Israel accept the olive branch on offer by the Arab Leaders unanimously. Let the glimmer of hope at the end of the tunnel not turn into an oncoming train.

Amr Khashoggi

Chief Advisor

Committee of International Trade

Council of Saudi Chambers of Commerce & Industry