An awful leader in the June 5 edition of the Daily Telegraph entitled "The road map unfolds," which sees the peace process essentially from the point of view of Israel's security, and echoes the opinion of the Times that there be no right of return for Palestinian refugees to their homes.

The leader can be read at the following link, though it is reproduced in full below with Arab Media Watch comments in brackets.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2003/06/05/dl0501.xml

Just about every American president from Richard Nixon to Bill Clinton has tried his hand at making peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Will President George Bush be the one who can finally end the century-long conflict?

There are many obstacles to his peace plan: Palestinian violence, the mendacity of Yasser Arafat, Ariel Sharon's hawkish pedigree, Israeli repressive measures against Palestinians, the infectious anti-Semitism of parts of the Arab world, the upsurge of militant Islam, the American political calendar.

Hardly were the speeches at Aqaba read out than Palestinian rejectionists declared that their so-called "resistance" will continue. It will not take many suicide bombs to destroy the "road map''.

(No mention of the rally by 10,000 settlers in Jerusalem that same day, opposing the peace plan and saying they will not leave the occupied territories. Security for Ariel Sharon has reportedly been increased for fear of an assassination attempt by an Israeli extremist.)

Yet the road map has already made more progress than many would have believed possible even a few weeks ago. America's victory in Iraq makes it even more powerful in the Middle East, and all leaders in the region must adapt to the new reality.

(Ie. might is right.)

The threat to Israel from Iraq has been removed. All state sponsors of terror - Iran and Syria among them - are under strong pressure to change their ways. Israelis and Palestinians are exhausted after nearly three years of agony.

(Notice the words the Telegraph uses instead of resistance - "terror" and "violence".  According to the newspaper, the term resistance is "so-called"!  Also, Iraq was no threat to Israel.)

If Mr Bush is seen to act fairly, then many ordinary Israelis and Palestinians will be silently cheering him to push their leaders towards a two-state solution whose outlines are largely known: an Israeli withdrawal from most of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, shared arrangements for Jerusalem, the Palestinian "right of return" to a future Palestine and not to Israel.

(Why shouldn't Israel withdraw from all the occupied territories, as legally required to do so?  These constitute only 22% of former Palestine, so why should the Palestinians concede yet more land?)

(Also, if a Palestinian refugee comes from somewhere in Israel, going to the occupied territories does not mean the implementation of the right of return as that is not his or her home.  This is a right guaranteed under international law.  For concise facts regarding the refugee issue, click on the link below.)

http://www.nad-plo.org/fact_sheets_faq/FAQ-PalestinianRefugees.pdf

Judging from yesterday's declarations, all three key players have shown real seriousness of purpose.

Mr Abbas spoke clearly about the need to end all violence against Israelis and to disarm Palestinian terrorist groups. For a man who once questioned the Holocaust, he acknowledged "the suffering of the Jews throughout history".

It is still to be seen whether Mr Abbas is more sincere than his "president", Mr Arafat. And, if genuine, whether he has power over the gunmen or on his leader.

Mr Sharon, for his part, has undergone an intriguing transformation. He declared he would dismantle "unauthorised" settlements. It is unclear precisely what he means, but this is an important step for the man whose energy in covering the biblical landscape in concrete earned him the nickname of "the Bulldozer".

(No mention that all settlements in the occupied territories are illegal under international law, as well as binding UN Security Council resolutions.) 

His acceptance that the Palestinian state should have contiguous territory in the West Bank is a hint that even permanent settlements might eventually be evacuated.

The most striking comments by Mr Sharon came a few days ago, when he declared that the occupation of the Palestinians was "a terrible thing for Israel and for the Palestinians", though he later retracted the term "occupation".

(Note that Sharon talked of the occupation of Palestinians, not Palestinian land, implying a withdrawal only from population centres while keeping most of the land under Israeli control.)

Mr Bush is the essential driving force behind the road map, and his actions have pleasantly surprised many sceptics. He had been reluctant to become involved in the detail of negotiations and risk another Clinton-like failure. But by announcing a team of permanent American monitors, the President has gone beyond the commitment of his predecessor.

The determination is strong and the intentions are good, but we must remember that it was the Oslo process that helped convince Palestinian extremists that Israel could be defeated. The road map is a brave start, but, if there is no good faith about the end to violence, it will lead into a cul-de-sac.  

(Not sure what the Telegraph means regarding Oslo.)

Write to dtletters@telegraph.co.uk