It’s been a bad metaphor week. I’m talking about U.S. President George W. Bush’s “road map” to peace in the Mideast, never a great image.

After this week’s chain of deaths and attacks, the metaphor was extended to the map itself as a casualty, suffering a “grave” or “massive” blow.

I beg to differ. The road map wasn’t a victim of the latest spate of violence. It was the cause.

The simple way to state this is by noting that his plan does not even try to end the Israeli occupation. The plan pledges a Palestinian state that is “contiguous.” That means it would exist within and around all the Israeli settlements, roads, fortifications and the huge separation fence, which stands like the wall of a prison towering over inmates.

The plan calls for removal solely of recent settlements, and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon agreed to displace only “unauthorized” ones, perhaps ten. An Israeli columnist said many such “outposts” were “put up just to pull them out” — and be seen on TV.

The plan does not deal with East Jerusalem or the Palestinian right of return.

I can hear a groan as I write that phrase, so let me say: Israel was founded on its own Law of Return for Jews, and a parallel Palestinian claim, based on living memories of homes, land, etc., cannot be disregarded. It is thorny but must be acknowledged, negotiated and resolved. All efforts since Oslo foundered on a failure to deal with such thorny questions.

Palestinians will no longer grant any benefit of the doubt on these issues while Israel, as the party with most of the power, would rather leave them unresolved. So the road map was neither bold nor ambitious, as many called it. And it left the largest source of conflict, the occupation, unaddressed.

When Mr. Bush was in the Mideast last week, many reports said he had now committed his “prestige” and needed to achieve a solution — a claim based on short-term journalistic amnesia. Just last spring, when Israel invaded the West Bank, he demanded it withdraw “without delay.” When asked what he would do if ignored, he said: “I don’t expect them to ignore. I expect them to heed the call.” But Israel did ignore him and he did nothing.

This week, he criticized Israel’s assassination policy. When Israel refused to backtrack, he switched to criticizing Hamas. There is apparently no element of his prestige at stake there.

Nevertheless, a potential solution has been floated. U.S. Senator (and Bush ally) John Warner is calling for the United States to police the occupied areas. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked him why the United States should involve itself in that mess. Silly question, the senator might have replied. The mess exists because of U.S. involvement: $3-billion (U.S.) a year in aid plus support for Israel against most international proposals for years.

If the U.S. pressured Israel, a solution would surely follow. For example, Palestinians have frequently requested international monitors, but Israel refused, with U.S. backing.

At this point, though, another metaphor arises: the quagmire. U.S. troops are in Afghanistan, where news reports say things like, “Large areas of the country outside the capital have in effect reverted to Taliban rule.” In Iraq, there is anger and resistance to U.S. forces. Why would anyone want them invading yet another volatile zone?

But the Mideast is different, it seems to me. Palestine is a mess, not a quagmire. It can be fixed. The solution is fairly clear: an end to Israel’s occupation, by far the most aggravating factor. As I said, the United States could do this through economic or political pressure, but is unlikely to due to its own domestic constraints from both Jewish and right-wing Christian sources.

So instead, perhaps, the Americans will try an indirect approach: a sort of U.S. occupation of the Israeli occupation. I’m for it. There are better solutions, but none are going to happen.

I know people, many of them Jewish, who say the problem is not the occupation; it’s the implacable hatred of the Palestinians or their anti-Semitism. But you can always find reason to despair. Fifteen years ago people often said Afrikaners would never yield power peacefully in South Africa. The real question is: How much do you believe “they” share with us, in ordinary human terms, such as a desire to live based on feelings other than hate and revenge?

That kid who blew up the Jerusalem bus this week was 18. For whatever it’s worth, the chant reported from Gaza this week was, “No to Abu Mazen’s peace,” not “Death to the Jews.” (Though in Jerusalem, “Death to Arabs” was chanted.)

Last Sunday I attended a conference held by Jews who oppose the occupation. It was earnest and well wrought. But running through it was anxiety about being accused of anti-Semitism or abetting the next Holocaust. At times it felt almost as much about “us” as about “them.” Everyone is so fearful, if not of being killed, then of being called some name.

rick_salutin_small_24_1_1_1_1_0

Rick Salutin

Rick Salutin is a Canadian novelist, playwright and critic. He is a strong advocate of left wing causes and writes a regular column in the Toronto Star.