From time to time, between the banter and blather about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, you hear a rare voice of reason —somebody who cuts through the bullshit, right to the heart of the matter. For me, two years ago was one of those times. It was two weeks before Israel’s pullout from the Gaza Strip, and I was at a seminar in Jerusalem. The speaker was Mossi Raz, a left-wing Israeli politician and leader of the peace group Shalom Achshav (Peace Now).

“99.9 percent of Israelis and Palestinians would tell you that they want peace,” he said. “More often than not, what they mean is that they want peace on their terms. But peace, my friends, comes only with compromise — the price of peace will be tough for both sides to swallow, to be sure, but it is far smaller than the costs of endless conflict and bloodshed.”

Simple but true … peace comes at a price.

As Israeli and Palestinian leaders gather today at a U.S.-sponsored conference in Annapolis, Md., that price is increasingly clear to both sides. If the parties reach a final-status agreement during post-Annapolis negotiations — if they ever reach one — it will look remarkably similar to the proposal put forward by President Clinton during his last weeks in office. It’s a deal that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak accepted and one that most reasonable Palestinians wish Yasser Arafat hadn’t rejected. It’s not perfect, it’s not even “fair,” but it’s the only game in town — the only deal that both sides will ever be able to accept…

Borders and Settlements

The Palestinians will be given an independent state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Minor territorial adjustments will be made to the pre-1967 borders, with Israel annexing about 5 percent of the land (to incorporate large settlement blocs and ensure more defensible frontiers) and, in return, compensating the Palestinians with an equivalent amount of land from inside Israel. The Israelis who currently live in settlements that lie beyond the new Israeli borders will be evacuated — by force if necessary — and resettled inside Israel.

Jerusalem

Jerusalem will be divided. Israel will cede most or all Arab neighborhoods to the Palestinians to serve as the capital of their new state. International arrangements will be made to allow Muslims and Jews continued safe access to their holy sites.

Refugees

The millions of Palestinian refugees (and their descendants) will finally be allowed to leave their squalid refugee camps around the Arab world and to settle in the new Palestinian state, but not in Israel (though Israel may accept some thousands for family reunification). Israel and the international community will compensate the refugees monetarily for lost property and for their suffering. Likewise, the Arab states will compensate the million or so Jews who were forced to flee their homes across the Arab world (and who now live mostly in Israel) for their lost property.

Lastly, both sides will agree to a formal termination of the conflict and a renunciation of all further claims. A final-status agreement is worthless if it’s not really final.

I spoke recently with a member of the Israeli delegation from the 2000-2001 negotiations. He told me that, Arafat aside, most of the Palestinian negotiators — the same cast of characters now in Annapolis —were ready to sign a deal.

“Mahmoud Abbas, Ahmed Qurei, Saeb Erekat … ” he said … “Pretty much all of them were ready to accept the Clinton-Barak proposals. Arafat torpedoed the whole thing. He couldn’t bring himself to sign on the dotted line. He knew that to end the conflict would be to end himself, his whole raison d’etre — the great struggle with Israel. He chose Jihad over Palestine, and Palestinians and Israelis are still paying the price for his decision. If it weren’t for Arafat, Palestinians could be celebrating their seventh anniversary of independence right now.”

With Arafat out of the picture, I asked, was he confident that the sides could strike a deal this time around?

To my chagrin, he wasn’t. “Look,” he said, “for decades, Arafat promised his people the moon, never making any effort to prepare them for the compromises they‘d have to make. The kind of discussions we have daily in the Knesset about concessions on Jerusalem and other issues — they’re totally taboo in most Palestinian circles, sometimes deadly for those who broach the subject. Now even the most sincere Palestinian leaders fear signing on to any deal because they don’t want to be seen as traitors.”

Enforcing a deal may be harder than actually reaching it. Hardliners on both sides will seek to thwart a peace agreement by any means possible. In Israel, the settlers and their allies will seek to use their democratic muscle, lobbying members of the Knesset to vote against a deal and, if it comes to a referendum, getting their people to the polls to vote it down.

Having spent enough time in Israel and with Israelis, I remain supremely confident that if Israelis truly believe that a peace deal will actually bring peace — and not continued terrorism — the vast majority of them will enthusiastically support it and suppress those among them who wouldn’t.

I can’t speak for the Palestinians. But my belief, my hope — sometimes it’s difficult to tell them apart — is that most of them feel the same way. They may just be too afraid to say so. The question is what action this silent majority will be willing to take to stop those who would use violence and terrorism to kill any prospects of peace.

Unfortunately, you’re not likely to hear specifics come out of Annapolis. Instead, you’ll hear Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas give flowery speeches telling the world for the umpteenth time that they and their peoples want peace. We know you want peace, gentlemen, but tell us: What price are you willing to pay?

Ben Birnbaum is a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be contacted at bbirnbaum@c­or­ne­llsun.­com. Infomaniacs Anonymous appears Tuesdays.