The urgency of the Israel-Palestinian conflict -- and especially its potential for derailing efforts to remove Saddam Hussein -- has given birth to a variety of "quick fix" plans, all of which have a common core consisting of the following:

* Management of the conflict rather than attempts to resolve it.

* An interim agreement rather than a comprehensive one.

* Reorganization of the Palestinian Authority's (PA) security bodies for more effective anti-terror action -- to be supported by international forces.

* Reform in the accountability of PA bodies.

* A Palestinian state created and recognized by the world community.

Once these changes in the Palestinian situation were in place, talks on a permanent agreement would be opened, based on the Saudi peace plan. Saudi Arabia and Egypt would "deliver" Yasser Arafat, and the United States would do the same with Israel. An international conference, a sort of "Madrid II," would pave the way for this.

But however attractive this "quick fix" may be on its surface, it is seriously -- probably fatally -- flawed.

First, the idea that the Palestinian Authority could conduct an effective anti-terror campaign (arrest terrorists, dismantle Hamas and Islamic Jihad, stop Tanzim operations) and carry out real reform (rule of law, open political system, reduced corruption) is an illusion so long as Arafat is in power. Arafat is the embodiment of all that stands in contrast to these objectives and values. How do I know? From the dealings with him over eight years by four Israeli prime ministers, including me. In all that time, commitment to these objectives never got past rhetoric.

Second, the Arab leaders do not have real leverage on Arafat. Arafat is empowered by the continuous stream of TV coverage of events. His ability to stir the Arab streets actually gives him considerable leverage upon them.

There is also a serious strategic mistake in this plan: It rewards terror. Arafat has tried for 20 months now to dictate to Israel and the world, using suicide bombing as a diplomatic tool. Israel will never yield to this, nor should the United States. Arafat needs to recognize that he cannot gain a single inch through his deliberate and conscious turn to mass killing of innocent civilians. It's all about terror. Were it about "occupation" we could have already been well into the end of it in July 2000, following the Camp David summit.

The Saudi plan is, on historical and symbolic levels, a significant and important step in the right direction: Israel strikes at Palestinian terror and Saudi Arabia steps forward with a "peace plan," something that would have been inconceivable 30 years ago.

But the devil is in the details. Basically this plan is the old Arab position in an extreme version. It calls for the 1967 borders rather than secure and recognized ones. It does not mention recognizing Israel as a Jewish state or acknowledging that the right of return would apply only to the Palestinian state -- not to Israel.

Adoption of such a plan "as is" by the international community would amount to a major reward to terror and would, I believe, be rejected by Israel as a nonstarter and a threat to the country's future and security.

Moreover, I believe an international attempt to impose such a plan on Israel would send a shock wave through the American public. Freedom-loving, honest Americans might see it, and rightly so, as a capitulation that breaks the moral and strategic backbone of the American war against terror in its first real trial. The only existing relevant basis for a new plan, if it is to be congruent with President Bush's principle of no yielding to terror, is the Camp David principles, under whatever name.

As for dealing with Arafat, consider some precedents. Americans negotiated with Saddam Hussein until it became clear the Iraqi ruler was trying to eliminate Kuwait from the map. Then the United States and its allies acted. Americans negotiated with Slobodan Milosevic during the breakup of Yugoslavia, but when the nature of his intentions, actions and atrocities in Kosovo became clear, there was no philosophizing about his being the "elected leader" of his people -- there was action against him. Many in Israel believe the time has come for the world to pass judgment on Yasser Arafat as well.

What, then, should America do? It should, first of all, focus on Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein. Once he is gone there will be a different Arab world and, in time, a different Palestinian leadership. Right now the only other regional player with whom Arafat acts in harmony is Hussein. Rising Israeli-Palestinian conflict serves, from Hussein's point of view, to deflect the U.S. focus on ousting him in Iraq and to weaken the political stamina of those in the West who would remove him.

There needs to be a solid, unified world position vis-a-vis Arafat. Otherwise he will never move. Bring the European, U.N. and Russian positions closer to the White House's -- not the other way around.

As for Israel's role, the United States should back us in a "three-legs strategy" consisting of (1) tough struggle against terror, not against the Palestinian people; (2) the opening of a door to negotiation at any time based on the principles of Camp David -- without any precondition other than the absence of violence; and (3) security fences around Israel and the main settlement blocks as part of a unilateral disengagement, as long as there is no Palestinian partner for a peace agreement.

Arab leaders ought to be told the truth. They are serious people. They realize that however frustrating that truth is today, living by it will serve them tomorrow. And the truth is that enough is enough.

The writer is a former prime minister of Israel.No Quick Fix

By Ehud Barak
The Washington Post
Saturday, June 8, 2002; Page A21

The urgency of the Israel-Palestinian conflict -- and especially its potential for derailing efforts to remove Saddam Hussein -- has given birth to a variety of "quick fix" plans, all of which have a common core consisting of the following:

* Management of the conflict rather than attempts to resolve it.

* An interim agreement rather than a comprehensive one.

* Reorganization of the Palestinian Authority's (PA) security bodies for more effective anti-terror action -- to be supported by international forces.

* Reform in the accountability of PA bodies.

* A Palestinian state created and recognized by the world community.

Once these changes in the Palestinian situation were in place, talks on a permanent agreement would be opened, based on the Saudi peace plan. Saudi Arabia and Egypt would "deliver" Yasser Arafat, and the United States would do the same with Israel. An international conference, a sort of "Madrid II," would pave the way for this.

But however attractive this "quick fix" may be on its surface, it is seriously -- probably fatally -- flawed.

First, the idea that the Palestinian Authority could conduct an effective anti-terror campaign (arrest terrorists, dismantle Hamas and Islamic Jihad, stop Tanzim operations) and carry out real reform (rule of law, open political system, reduced corruption) is an illusion so long as Arafat is in power. Arafat is the embodiment of all that stands in contrast to these objectives and values. How do I know? From the dealings with him over eight years by four Israeli prime ministers, including me. In all that time, commitment to these objectives never got past rhetoric.

Second, the Arab leaders do not have real leverage on Arafat. Arafat is empowered by the continuous stream of TV coverage of events. His ability to stir the Arab streets actually gives him considerable leverage upon them.

There is also a serious strategic mistake in this plan: It rewards terror. Arafat has tried for 20 months now to dictate to Israel and the world, using suicide bombing as a diplomatic tool. Israel will never yield to this, nor should the United States. Arafat needs to recognize that he cannot gain a single inch through his deliberate and conscious turn to mass killing of innocent civilians. It's all about terror. Were it about "occupation" we could have already been well into the end of it in July 2000, following the Camp David summit.

The Saudi plan is, on historical and symbolic levels, a significant and important step in the right direction: Israel strikes at Palestinian terror and Saudi Arabia steps forward with a "peace plan," something that would have been inconceivable 30 years ago.

But the devil is in the details. Basically this plan is the old Arab position in an extreme version. It calls for the 1967 borders rather than secure and recognized ones. It does not mention recognizing Israel as a Jewish state or acknowledging that the right of return would apply only to the Palestinian state -- not to Israel.

Adoption of such a plan "as is" by the international community would amount to a major reward to terror and would, I believe, be rejected by Israel as a nonstarter and a threat to the country's future and security.

Moreover, I believe an international attempt to impose such a plan on Israel would send a shock wave through the American public. Freedom-loving, honest Americans might see it, and rightly so, as a capitulation that breaks the moral and strategic backbone of the American war against terror in its first real trial. The only existing relevant basis for a new plan, if it is to be congruent with President Bush's principle of no yielding to terror, is the Camp David principles, under whatever name.

As for dealing with Arafat, consider some precedents. Americans negotiated with Saddam Hussein until it became clear the Iraqi ruler was trying to eliminate Kuwait from the map. Then the United States and its allies acted. Americans negotiated with Slobodan Milosevic during the breakup of Yugoslavia, but when the nature of his intentions, actions and atrocities in Kosovo became clear, there was no philosophizing about his being the "elected leader" of his people -- there was action against him. Many in Israel believe the time has come for the world to pass judgment on Yasser Arafat as well.

What, then, should America do? It should, first of all, focus on Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein. Once he is gone there will be a different Arab world and, in time, a different Palestinian leadership. Right now the only other regional player with whom Arafat acts in harmony is Hussein. Rising Israeli-Palestinian conflict serves, from Hussein's point of view, to deflect the U.S. focus on ousting him in Iraq and to weaken the political stamina of those in the West who would remove him.

There needs to be a solid, unified world position vis-a-vis Arafat. Otherwise he will never move. Bring the European, U.N. and Russian positions closer to the White House's -- not the other way around.

As for Israel's role, the United States should back us in a "three-legs strategy" consisting of (1) tough struggle against terror, not against the Palestinian people; (2) the opening of a door to negotiation at any time based on the principles of Camp David -- without any precondition other than the absence of violence; and (3) security fences around Israel and the main settlement blocks as part of a unilateral disengagement, as long as there is no Palestinian partner for a peace agreement.

Arab leaders ought to be told the truth. They are serious people. They realize that however frustrating that truth is today, living by it will serve them tomorrow. And the truth is that enough is enough.

The writer is a former prime minister of Israel.