not spell out what was to come after the long interim stages. Without a clear final aim, the interim stages had no clear purpose. Therefore the Oslo process died with Yitzhak Rabin.
The Roadmap confirms that there now exists a worldwide consensus about these objectives. This fact will remain even if nothing comes out of it. Those of us who remember that only 35 years ago there were hardly a handful of people in the world who believed in this vision can draw profound satisfaction from this Roadmap. It shows that we have won the struggle for world public opinion.
But let's not exaggerate: in this document, too, there is a gaping hole in the definition of the aims. It does not say what the borders of the future Palestinian state should be, either explicitly or implicitly. The Green Line is not even mentioned. That by itself is enough to invalidate the whole structure. Ariel Sharon talks about a Palestinian state in 40 percent of the "territories"-equivalent to less than 9 percent of Palestine under the British Mandate. Does anyone believe that this will bring peace?
When we pass from poetry to prose, from the mountaintop of the aims to the road that is supposed to get us there, the warning signs become more and more frequent. This is a perilous road with many curves and obstacles. Even a very brave athlete would shudder at the thought of having to run this course.
The road is divided into phases. In every phase the parties must fulfill certain obligations. At the end of each phase the Quartet must decide whether the obligations have been completely fulfilled, before entering the next one. At the end, the hoped-for peace will come, God willing.
Even if all the parties were imbued with goodwill, it would be extremely difficult. When David Lloyd-George, as British Prime Minister, decided to end the British occupation of Ireland, he observed that one cannot cross an abyss in two jumps. The initiators of the Roadmap propose, in effect, to cross the Israeli-Palestinian abyss in many small hops.
First question: who is this "Quartet" that has to decide at every point whether the two parties have fulfilled their obligations, and a new phase can be entered?
At first glance, there is a balance between the four players: the United Nations, the United States, Europe, and Russia. It is rather like a commercial arbitration: each side appoints one arbitrator, and the two arbitrators together choose a third one. Judgment is reached by majority decision and is binding on both parties.
This could work. The United States are close to Israel; Europe and Russia are acceptable to the Palestinians. The UN representative would have the casting vote.