The first Palestinian prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas, was elected on Tuesday. After a four-hour debate, Abbas and his new cabinet won with 33 votes. In his speech, he renounced terrorism and Palestinian militants. Furthermore, he stated that peace would occur only if Israel abandoned Jewish settlements and ends its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Ali Abunimah, co-founder of Electronicintifada.net and vice president of Arab American Action Network, was online Wednesday, April 30 at 2 p.m. ET to discuss the new Palestinian government.

Abunimah is a writer and commentator on Middle East and Arab-American affairs. His articles have appeared in The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Chicago Tribune, The Financial Times, The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Jordan Times and Haaretz, among others. He has been featured on local, national and international radio and television programs including NPR, CNN, the BBC and others.

Below is the transcript.

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.

Ali Abunimah: Good afternoon every one. We have tons of questions, and I'll do my best to get through as many as I can.

New York, NY: What is your opinion of President Bush's "road map" for peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

Ali Abunimah: The Road Map was published today, and I have had a chance to give it a quick read. It needs more careful study, but here are some initial comments. In some ways it does not fulfill the worst expectations of the Palestinians. I think the key point is that it requires simultaneity. What Israel wants is for the Palestinians to do everything first (halt all resistance and attacks on civilians, carry out extensive internal reforms, and so on) before Israel is obligated to do anything at all. What the Road Map contains however, is the demand that in phase one both sides act simultaneously. Palestinians are required to reaffirm commitment to peace, and call for an end to violence. At precisely the SAME time, the plan says,

"Israeli leadership issues unequivocal statement affirming its commitments to the two-state vision of an independent, viable, sovereign Palestinian state living in peace and security alongside Israel, as expressed by President Bush, and calling for an immediate end to violence against Palestinian everywhere. All official Israeli institutions end incitement against Palestinians."

It also demands, simultaneously and in the first phase,

"GOI [Government of Israel] takes no actions undermining trust, including deportations, attack on civilians; confiscation and/or demolition of Palestinian homes and property, as a punitive measure or to facilitate Israeli construction; destruction of Palestinian institutions and infrastructure;"

and,

"a.. GOI immediately dismantles settlement outposts erected since March 2001.

b.. Consistent with the Mitchell Report, GOI freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements)."

Whereas the Palestinians have basically accepted all the requirements in the first phase, Israel rejects them. The chances that the Sharon government will agree to an immediate freeze on settlement construction are slim, and the pro-Israeli lobby has been working overtime to derail the Road Map. I think that Israel and its supporters should not be allowed to torpedo this plan for peace that has the support of most of the world. Although I have a lot of serious reservations and doubts about the plan, I think it needs to be given every chance to work.

You can read the full text of the Road Map Here.

Demarest, NJ: [Edited] I've often consulted your Web site, Electronic Intifada, to illuminate the many blank spots in American reporting on Israel and Palestine. Thanks for your work. You're often very even-handed, treating Jewish and Arab lives and aspirations as equally important ... although I have to admit, I cringe my way through some of your other material . . .

My question: Your Web site explains how the West Bank and Gaza represent 22 percent of the original land of Israel/Palestine, the overwhelming majority of which, before the 1948 war, belonged to Arabs. Since they lost three-quarters of their original homeland before the 1967 war, many Palestinians regard receiving the whole of that remaining 22 percent as the minimum required for peace -- in other words, a complete return to pre-1967 borders (except for minor adjustments). Does Pres. Bush's "Road Map" point toward that solution? Does it allow it? Are there any indications of a willingness among Israelis to return effectively all of the West Bank and Gaza for real peace? What does Mr. Abbas regard as an acceptable minimum? In other words, when you clear away all the process and benchmarks, is there a basic division of lands within the Road Map on which both sides might agree?

Ali Abunimah: I agree that a Palestinian state in all of the territories occupied in 1967, including all of occupied eastern Jerusalem is the absolute minimum requirement for peace for all the reasons you set out in your question. Abbas affirmed that this was his view in his confirmation speech, but many Palestinians still doubt that since he is the author of numerous 'peace plans' that would give the Palestinians far less. So we shall have to see what Abbas does.

This is what the Road Map says about the final status:

In 2004 the Quartet will launch a conference "leading to a final, permanent status resolution in 2005, including on borders, Jerusalem, refugees, settlements"

and at the end,

"Parties reach final and comprehensive permanent status agreement that ends the Israel -- Palestinian conflict in 2005, through a settlement negotiated between the parties based on UNSCR 242, 338, and 1397, that ends the occupation that began in 1967, and includes an agreed, just, fair, and realistic solution to the refugee issue, and a negotiated resolution on the status of Jerusalem that takes into account the political and religious concerns of both sides, and protects the religious interests of Jews, Christians, and Muslims worldwide, and fulfills the vision of two states, Israel and sovereign, independent, democratic and viable Palestine, living side-by-side in peace and security."

As you can see, it is still rather vague, and this is what will cause serious worry to Palestinians. It does demand an end to the occupation --which is good -- but does not specify full, total Israeli withdrawal and the removal of all of Israel's illegal colonies. The Road Map does demand that Israel stop building settlements and remove some small outposts erected since March 2001, but it is silent about the future of existing major settlements built since 1967. It is vague on all of these issues and simply repeats very vague Oslo formulas.

There is nothing in the Road Map that is inconsistent with the unacceptable Bantustan-type solutions that Clinton attempted to ram down the Palestinians' throats at Camp David in July 2000. On the other hand there is also nothing in it that is inconsistent with a genuine and full Israeli withdrawal and a total end to the occupation. Herein lies the danger and pitfalls. Will Palestinians and their allies be able to muster enough political support for a just and fair interpretation of the Road Map, or will Israel get the better of it and impose an interpretation that seeks --like Oslo -- to continue the occupation by another name?

Oslo, Norway: Since most of the world seems to think Israel should give up land to the arabs within its borders, would you agree that Iraq, Syria, Yemen and other arab states should carve out sections of territory and create Jewish states within thier borders and allow the jews they expelled the "right of return?" If not, please explain the difference

Ali Abunimah: I think that all Jews who left their homes in Arab countries either forcibly or voluntarily as a result of the Israeli-Arab conflict should (a) be allowed to return to their original countries and homes immediately; and (b) have all citizenship, political and property rights restored to them immediately. These rights are inherent in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Of course the same rights apply to Palestinians forcibly expelled from their homes, or not allowed to return by Israel's discrminatory "Law of Return."

It should be noted that Jewish Arabs lived in Arab countries for millenia in peace, while Jews were being murdered and persecuted in Europe. The departure of Jews from their native Arab lands beginning in the 1950s was entirely the result of modern nationalism and Zionism. It is a tragedy, and Jewish Arabs should of course be allowed to return home if they choose to do so. I was heartened that it was Muslims who helped protect Baghdad's Jewish community amidst the looting and chaos following the US occupation of the city. I hope that this can be a spark that will restore surviving Jewish Arab communities in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and elsewhere to their former greatness. They are a part of Arab heritage that should be nurtured and cherished.

Germantown, MD: How do you respond to critics who think that
Electronicintifada.net is a front for Palestinian terrorism?

Ali Abunimah: I have never heard of these "critics." I take your question to be nothing more than a childish provocation. Obviously such "critics" would have to have some basis for such an assertion other than the racist belief that all Palestinians or their supporters are by definition "terrorists."

Cumberland, MD: Do you think any sort of peace is possible as long as Sharon in Prime Minister?

Ali Abunimah: Although Sharon is notorious for the war crimes he committed in Lebanon, and the war crimes he continues to commit on a daily basis, I do not see individuals as being the problem. If Sharon agrees to end the occupation and restore Palestinian rights then he could be a peacemaker. I have to admit that seems very unlikely since his current coalition includes cabinet ministers from parties that openly ran for election on a platform of "transfer" of all the Palestinians -- a crime that fits the international legal definition of genocide. He seems to be more comfortable with such figures than he does with the idea of peace and coexistence. It is a tragedy for the Israeli people that they do not have better leaders.

Aspin Hill, MD: Do you advocate peaceful coexistance with Israel or do you wish for Israel's complete destruction?

Ali Abunimah: I advocate and have always advocated peaceful coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians. I have written an article spelling out my personal vision entitled "Two States or One?"

I invite you to read it.

Linwood, Pa: Thank you very much for being here today.
I am very interested to know what your opinion is on today's Wall Street
Journal article which details how Yasser Arafat sent Palestinian scientists
to Iraq to help develop the Iraqi chemical weapons program. Can you confirm this report?

Ali Abunimah: I haven't read this report. It sounds rather far-fatched. Email it to me and perhaps I will respond later at ElectronicIntifada.net.

Chicago, IL: If there are peace talks with the new Palestinian government, what is the probability of success if the Israeli government wants control over Palestinian air space and resources (such as water?)

Ali Abunimah: If Israel insists on a "final status" in which Palestinians have anything less than total freedom, sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence, then there is no chance. That is why the Camp David summit failed.

New York, N.Y.: Two questions: When you say the occupied territories are 22% of historic palestine, is that including or excluding (Trans)Jordan? Why wasn't a Palestinian state created when Jordan controlled the West Bank?

Ali Abunimah: The West Bank and Gaza represent 22% of historic Palestine, that is to say the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterrannean Sea -- The area that is today Israel and the Occupied Territories. This is the area that had an overwhelming Palestinian majority (more than one million Palestinians against about half a million Jews) until most of the population was expelled or forced to flee from their homes in 1948. Until hundreds of Palestinians were forced into Transjordan (modern day Jordan), that country had a tiny population (estimated at around 150,000).

It is a common red-herring used by apologists for Israel to suggest that Transjordan was historically the home of the Palestinians. It wasn't. It become the home for many of them as a result of Israel's ethnic cleansing.

Washington DC: Is it true that Israeli settlements in West Bank and Gaza is rising and that the number of settlers have gone up?

Ali Abunimah: Yes it is true. In fact, since Israel signed the Oslo Accords in 1993, the number of settlers has doubled. This has been well-documented by the Israeli group Peace Now and is born out in Israel's own statistics. The point is that Israel is gobbling up Palestinian land as fast as it can in order to make peace impossible and to make an end to the occupation impossible. These settlements -- really Jewish-only colonies built on land forcibly confiscated from its Palestinian owners -- is a violation of the Geneva Conventions, numerous UN Security Council Resolutions, and official US policy.

New York, NY: Has the new Palestinian prime minister made any statements related to Israeli checkpoints for Palestinians, or on Israeli construction of fences and walls along border areas? Does the "road map" deal with these specific issues, or is it vague?

Ali Abunimah: It does call on Israel to end measures it has taken, but it is rather vague. See my early comments, and refer to the full text of the Road Map at ElectronicIntifada.net

Boston, MA: This morning on NPR I heard an Israeli representative make a comment to the effect that this prime minister has stepped up to bat and has already failed to stop terrorism (in reference to this mornings bombing at a club near the American embassy). It isn't even the first day and Israeli government officials are already trying to derail the peace process. Why would the Israeli's treat this new government any different than its predecessors?

Ali Abunimah: Israel is opposed to the Road Map because it contradicts Israel's long-term goal of permanent control and continued expansion in the occupied territories. Therefore Israel will seek any excuse to delay and derail the process. For a long time Israel focused on Arafat as the problem. Now that they got their wish of new leadership it will probably not be too long before they start demonizing the new leadership too.

The Electronic Intifada recently obtained and published a document, entitled "Wexner Analysis: Israeli Communication Priorities 2003," prepared for pro-Israel activists by the public relations firm The Luntz Research Companies and The Israel Project. The document spells out the tactics that Israel and its US advocates should use to maintain support for Israel and its hardline policies. I quote:

"To some extent, your job as proponents of Israel has been easy. Under the Arafat regime it's not difficult to convince the American public of the corruption of the current Palesitnian leadership. While many sympathize with the plight of the Palestinian people, there is no love lost for Yassir Arafat. Arafat is a terrorist; they know that. Better still, he looks the part. The emergence of Mahmoud Abbas as the new Palestinian Prime Minister comes exactly at the wrong time. His ascent to power seems legitimate. He is a fresh face, and a clean-shaven one at that. He speaks well and dresses in Western garb. He may even want peace."

I think this document demonstrates the great bad faith that significant portions of the pro-Israel lobby and the Israeli government have when it comes to the issue of Palestinian leadership. It also shows the cynical attempts to manipulate the US public and to rely on ugly stereotypes of the "unshaven" Araab "terrorist." You can read the whole document at ElectronicIntifada.net

Somewhere, USA: Following the 1949 armistice, access was supposed to be provided to Jewish holy places in East Jerusalem.

This access was never provided by the Jordanians.

Given this, and the history of mistrust on both sides, any partition of Jerusalem is going to have to allow for access, or for a shifting of the greenline to allow both sides control of places of religious importance.

How can this be arranged?

Ali Abunimah: Between 1948 and 1967, as you know, Jerusalem was divided by a fortified line. Nobody passed in either direction. More than 30,000 Palestinians were expelled from their West Jerusalem homes. Israel did not allow them to cross from East Jerusalem to pray at mosques or churches, visit family, or conduct business, let alone to return to their homes and properties. Given this reality, don't you think its a bit disingenuous to claim that only Jews suffered because of this situation?

Since Israel occupied East Jerusalem in 1967, it has illegally settled more than 200,000 Jews there, mostly on land expropriated from Palestinian owners. Do you know how many Palestinians Israel has allowed to return to their original homes in West Jerusalem? Zero.

Somewhere, USA: Even if we accept that all 700,000 Palestinian refugees in 1948 were expelled (something which is hotly contested), the various Arab nations expelled roughly the same number of Jews at the same time.

So "ethnic cleansing", to the extent it occurred, occurred at the same time. The difference is that Israel accepted the Jewish refugees, and many Arab nations have institutionalized the refugee status of the Palestinians, forbidding them citizenship, or even to own land or practice some professions.

Ali Abunimah: This is not true. Jews left Arab countries starting well after the expulsion of the Palestinians, not at the same time. Jews were in many cases forced to leave, and I addressed their rights in an earlier answer. But it is also true that Israel and the Zionist movement encouraged them to leave because their primary goal was to boost the Jewish population in Israel. Therefore, the "expulsion" of the Jews from their native Arab lands served Zionism. The expulsion of the Palestinians also served Zionism. So to suggest there is any symmetry here is another red-herring.

The fact that many Jewish Arabs were content to accept Israeli citizenship does not impose the same obligation on the Palestinians. I urge you also to read about the extreme racism practiced by Israel's Ashkanazi elite rulers against Jews from the Arab world in the 1950s. It is not a pretty story.

Maryland: Rachel Corrie died in Al Najah hospital in Palestine without any aide given to her after she was hit by a bulldozer protecting a terrorists home.
Why wasn't she provided with any medical help when in the hospital, why was she allowed to die? Do you feel that the Palestinians who contributed to her death have any responsbility, or do you feel that because of the PR value helping her die was a productive thing for the Palestinian cause?

Ali Abunimah: I assume you were at the hospital, doctor. Frankly I find your insensitivity and incitement against this courageous American peace activist sickening. Those who want to learn what really happened to Rachel Corrie, when she was deliberately killed by an Israeli bulldozer, can find extensive coverage at electronicIntifada.net.

Somewhere, USA: Holy Places: Since 1967, Palestinians have had access to the Dome of the Rock.

Prior to 1967, Jews did not have access to the Western Wall.

If you want to speak of being disingenous, taking a question about access to major holy places and switching it to a discussion of homes would seem to qualify.

Ali Abunimah: Ok. Today millions of Palestinian Muslims and Christians living under Israeli military dictatorship in the Occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip are forbidden from entering Jerusalem to pray at their holy sites.

Israel has forbidden Palestinians to enter Rachel's Tomb in Bethlehem, a site Palestinians looked after for centuries and which houses on its grounds a Muslim cemetery.

Israel has divided by force the Ibrahimi Mosque/Tomb of the Patriarchs in occupied Hebron and given most of it to Jewish settlers. It did this after one of the settlers murdered dozens of Palestinians at the shrine in 1994.

Israel has in recent years banned the firing of the traditional Ramadan cannon marking the end of the fast in occupied Jerusalem.

Israel's former deputy mayor in the occupation muncicpality in Jerusalem, Meron Benvenisti documents in his book Sacred Landscape (2000) the deliberate destruction by Israel of hundreds of mosques in Palestinian towns and villages throughout what is now Israel, after 1948, including the conversion of some of them to such uses as bars and nightclubs.

Tell me when it is enough, because I can go on.

Austin Tex.: Having just read the "roadmap", it seems that while the Palestinians are asked to renounce all violence against Israelis anywhere, Israel is only asked to stop its attacks Palestinian "civilians". This seems to leave in place Israel's use of death squads to murder Paletinian leaders, police and resistance fighters. How can anyone expect a total renouncement of violence of any sort from Palestinians without a concomitant renunciation of violence by Israel?

Isaac

Ali Abunimah: The text I have says that in Phase One:

"Israeli leadership issues unequivocal statement affirming its commitments to the two-state vision of an independent, viable, sovereign Palestinian state living in peace and security alongside Israel, as expressed by President Bush, and calling for an immediate end to violence against Palestinian everywhere. All official Israeli institutions end incitement against Palestinians."

Chicago, Ill.: Do you think the new Palestinian government would negotiate any access to the Mediterranean Sea in peace talks? How can a Palestinian state thrive in a global economy without it?

Ali Abunimah: The entire Gaza Strip would have to be part of the Palestinian state, and Gaza has a long Mediterranean coast. The problem will be whether Israel will grant Palestinians a genuine safe passage between the West Bank and Gaza. SO far it has never agreed to do that.

Oak Park Ill.: Do you believe that a two state solution is even possible now? Some in the PA have said that because of the expansiveness of the settlements that it be better for the Palestinian to pursue their full rights as citizens because it is would not be possible to build a viable Palestine State with what is left. What is your opinion? Thanks for your dedication to build a just peace.

Ali Abunimah: I address this question explicitly in my article "Two States or One?" which I referenced and linked to earlier. But briefly, I think Israel will have to decide quickly what it wants. There cannot be two states if Israel continues to colonize what is left of Palestinian land in the occupied territories. If Israel does continue its colonization policy then we will have a formal situation of Apartheid. Time is short for Israel. In a few years, Palestinians will once again be a majority in all of Israel and the Occupied Territories just as they were prior to 1948. Israel will have to decide whether it wants to join the modern world and be a modern democratic state living at peace with its Palestinian neighbors, or become an Apartheid state where a Jewish minority uses force to rule over a Palestinian majority. The day will come very soon where the settlements make two states impossible, if that day is not already here. In that case the only viable solution will be one state for Palestinians and Israeli Jews in which everyone enjoys full and equal rights.

washingtonpost.com: Reader's Guide to the Mideast 'Road Map'

DC: [Edited]Being neither Palestinian nor Israeli, I ask this as a serious question. . . Very rarely (if ever) is a conflict solely the fault of one side or the other - both bring fault to the table. We've read what you feel the Israelis are to blame for, what do you feel the Palestinians have to be held accountable for? ... Since the Palestinians can't control what Israel does, what steps can they take on their own to accept and rectify the part of the situation that they are responsible for? Or do you really think they are blameless in all of this?

Ali Abunimah: I don't think anyone is blameles, but I think we have to recognize the imbalance in power. What you can reasonably ask of a stateless, dispersed people that has almost no political, economic or military power, is not the same as you can ask from an organized state that holds a near monopoly on political, economic and military power and enjoys the full military and financial backing of the United States.

San Francisco, Calif.: I lived in Jordan for 5 years, and seen the war torn country of Palestine/Israel first hand, and have heard the stories from the other side, of palestian children getting killed, and settlers with machine guns gunning down whole mosques of worshipping muslims. Thank you so much for all your intelligent opinons offered here. Hopefully you've opened the eyes of many Americans who've bothered to read this. With the history of Jerusalem in the last 100 years and the fact that it ranks one of the major cities of three major religions that it would pry be a good idea to make it an international city run by the UN or some other impartial organization. What are your thoughts on this?

Ali Abunimah: I would support any solution that grants full, equal rights to all the people of Jerusalem, and guarantees access to Holy sites for all. Perhaps international guarantees or a UN role might be a good way to do that. There are many formulas as long as we agree on the principle of justice and equality. Unfortunately, so far, Israel's position has been the extremist one that it alone has the right to rule all of Jerusalem by force and to treat its native Palestinian population as if they were foreign visitors.

Chicago, Ill.: How can the average American contribute to a peace agreement between the Israeli government and the Palestinian people?

Ali Abunimah: More than 400 members of the House and Senate have signed on to an extremist letter circulated by the pro-Israel lobby opposing the Road Map. As I said, I have my own reservations about the Road Map, but I believe it deserves to be given a chance. Unfortunately those who circulated and signed the Congressional letter do not want to give peace a chance. People ought to make their views known, whether it is to their members of Congress or in public demonstrations or in letters to the editor. Get engaged and don't let an anti-peace minority win this fight.

Washington, DC.: In answer to a question about what part of the problem is caused by the Palestinians, you wrote:

Ali Abunimah: I don't think anyone is blameles, but I think we have to recognize the imbalance in power. What you can reasonably ask of a stateless, dispersed people that has almost no political, economic or military power, is not the same as you can ask from an organized state that holds a near monopoly on political, economic and military power and enjoys the full military and financial backing of the United States.

My question:
How about expecting a rejection of attacks on civilians, suicide or otherwise, like the one we saw yesterday? Not a mere rejection in words, but a complete cessation - by the people doing the attacks, like Hamas, the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, Islamic Jihad, etc.

Ali Abunimah: Of course. We need to condemn and demand a halt to all attacks on civilians by Israel and by the Palestinians. More than 300 people have been killed since September 2000, the vast majority Palestinians, and the vast majority (on both sides) unarmed civilians. What is fuelling the violence is the occupation, because the occupation uses extreme violence against an entire population to maintain control and to maintain the illegal colonies. Once the violence of the occupation ends, the fuel for Palestinian counterviolence will dry up.

Virginia: Mr. Abunimah, What is the reaction among Palestinians and Arab Americans of the new prime minister and cabinet?

Ali Abunimah: I think the reaction is ambivalent. Many people wanted new leadership since long before the US discovered the cause of Palestinian reform. Yet Abbas has a checkered past. Many Palestinians remember that he was involved in Palestinian Authority corruption from the beginning, and they will need to be convinced that he has changed. Also many view him as a candidate imposed by the United States and Israel. Palestinians prefer democracy, but unfortunately democracy is impossible under a hostile foreign military occupation.

Washington, D.C.: I think it's ridiculous for the Israeli government to expect a Palestinian Prime Minister elected 10 minutes ago to stop ALL terrorism against Israel. There is no way that is going to be able to happen. As the ones with the vast amount of power - it seems to me that it is incumbent upon the Israeli's to begin moving along the roadmap to peace and try to deal with rogue elements as it goes, if they want this conflict to end.

Ali Abunimah: You said it.

Melbourne, Australia: Why speak of return of 1948 refugees (now several millions) and hope to secure peace?

Ali Abunimah: Israel claims that if it recognizes Palestinians' inherent right to return to their homes then it will be flooded with millions of refugees. This is not what Palestinians are demanding. International law gives Palestinian refugees a choice to return to their original homes. In reality some will not want to return, or will find that their original homes no longer exist. Many will find they are comfortable where they are and choose not to return. But the choice is theirs, and remember the US fought wars so that Kosovans could return to their homes, and Iraqi exiles could return to their country. The principle of the right to return is indisputable. In practice there are ways to resolve this that recognize Israel's concerns, without compromising Palesitnian rights. Unfortunately Israel absolutely refuses to negotiate on this issue. And if you refuse to negotiate then how can we find a solution?

Dearborn, Mich.: I think you meant to say more than 3000 killed, not 300. Thanks.

Ali Abunimah: Yes. Thank you for the correction.

Chicago, Ill.: At present, who is providing the humanitarian aid for the Palestinian people? Do you think the new Palestinian government will demand U.S. funding for rebuilding a Palestinian state? If the U.S. doesn't provide adequate funding, which countries will support it?

Ali Abunimah: Well, under international law Israel should pay for the wanton destruction, pillage and suffering it has caused. The international community did in the past provide a lot of aid, for example to build a new port in Gaza and a new airport. Israel deliberately destroyed these and many other internationally funded projects. I think the international community will want to be sure that Israel will not destroy new projects and infrastructure if it funds them.

Bethesda, Md.: You say: "What you can reasonably ask of a stateless, dispersed people that has almost no political, economic or military power, is not the same as you can ask from an organized state that holds a near monopoly on political, economic and military power and enjoys the full military and financial backing of the United States."

Granted. But may I reasonably ask of the Palestinians, or may I reasonably ask even one -- you, for instance -- to once and for all to stop all conduct and speech that supports the use of such things as suicide bombing and the killing by armed males of unarmed women and children? Certainly I, for one, ask and even demand of the Israelis an equally civilized course of conduct.

But I do not hope for anything to come of all this talk of peace or "road maps" so long as both sides behave as they do -- I condemn both sides and all those who support them as nothing more than uncivilized barbarians.

Each new outrage, such as the bombing just yesterday, makes me stronger in my resolve to support my President in whatever new endeavor he chooses to undertake using the full armed might of these United States to shake these people out of their delusions and wake them up -- just as we did in Iraq.

Ali Abunimah: Well, I have condemned suicide bombings numerous times and do so again today. I think they are murderous and unacceptable and harm the Palestinian cause. What is lacking, unfortunately is any condemnation from Israel's ardent supporters in the US of Israel's systematic targeting, killing and maiming of Palestinian civilians -- documented by every human rights group that has looked -- and its countless violations of the Geneva Conventions. I think Palestinians would find professions of a desire for peace from organizations like AIPAC and the ADL a lot more convincing if they occasionally criticized Israel. I hope you will demand that from them, because it is past time frankly that we hear it.

Washington, D.C.: Not for either side here and not trying to be unsensitive, but I really wish Palestians would get their state already so this can stop be international headlines. But I am somewhat weary that even if the Palestians have their own state, that there would still be suicide bombings on the Isrealis, who will in return attack. Keeping this vicious cycle. Even if there is a Palestian state, who's to say that it will be democratic and progressive. Won't similar problems still remain. It seems without a state, at least the Palestians can blame Isreal and the US and give reason to bomb. With a Palestian state you would be on your own.

Ali Abunimah: Well, here are some facts for you:

According to the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem, from the beginning of the first Intifada in 1987, until the signing of the Oslo Accords in September 1993, Palestinians killed a total of one hundred Israeli civilians, half of them inside the Occupied Territories. During the same period, Israeli occupation forces and settlers killed more than 1,160 Palestinian civilians -- more than eleven Palestinians for every Israeli. During this period there were no suicide bombings.

Since September 2000, Israel has killed more than 2,000 Palestinians, and Palestinians have killed more than 700 Israelis. The ratio has shortened to only about three Palestinians for every Israeli killed. What does this tell us? Well, Israel has always used much more violence than the Palestinians, with the goal of maintaining the occupation. The longer the occupation goes on, however, the more counterviolence there is from Palestinians. This is to be expected. The occupation fuels the violence, and even though the vast majority of Palestinians have never engaged in an act of violence, there will always be some who will respond to Israeli violence with more violence. Conclusion: end the occupation and you end the violence.

Reading, Pennsylvania: What are (if any) the consecuences if any of the parties doesn't accept or follows this "road map"? Will USA stop funding Israel, for example?

Ali Abunimah: So far it is Israel that has not accepted the demands of the Road Map. What will be the consequences if this intiative fails? Years more violence and bloodshed for both sides, no doubt.

The most likely reason it will fail is if the Bush administration succumbs to the pro-Israel lobby's concerted campaign to derail the Road Map. That mustn't be allowed to happen.

Washington, DC: I asked the question about a stop to attacks on civilians...
Your answer implies that you think they are in some way justified by Israeli occupation.

I am against the occupation; I'd like to see settlements dismantled and taken apart, though you and I might disagree about what are settlements (particularly in terms of Jerusalem).

Still, in regards to attacks by the various groups that attack civilians inside and outside Israel proper - attacks that would have no military value to an army or even legitimate fighters - why do supporters of the Palestinian people always seem to throw up their hands in despair and say, "well, we can't control Hamas and the other groups, and besides, they're at least somewhat justified in blowing up tourists and children with nail-filled bombs"?

Ali Abunimah: Nothing I said "justifies" blowing up children with nail-filled bombs. You are trying to put words in my mouth. Israel is not occupying the Palestinians and stealing their land to build Jewish-only colonies because there is violence. Rather, there is violence because Israel is occupying the Palestinians and stealing their land to build Jewish-only colonies. This is pretty basic stuff. Violence has been increasing as the occupation goes on. What I am saying is that if you want to stop the violence you need to understand what is causing it.

You are arguing that a Palestinian Authority with limited means and under constant bombardment and assassination from Israel ought to be able to succeed where Israel with its vastly superior army has failed. This defies all common sense.

Ali Abunimah: I think we are done for the day. There are lots more questions, so I am sorry I did not get to answer all of them. Thanks to everyone who participated, and to the good people at washingtonpost.com. I hope to do this again soon. Let us hope that next time the news will be better and there will be genuine progress towards peace and justice.

   |      |