At the end of a forum on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process March 10 in Tigard, Robert Horenstein observed, "And there, in 40 minutes, you understand why peace in the Middle East is so difficult to achieve."

Horenstein was one of four individuals, including two Jews and two Palestinians—one Christian and one Muslim—who shared their perspectives on the long dispute between Israelis and Palestinians for the benefit of the assembled Presbyterians...

...Each of the four speakers was allotted 10 minutes to address two questions: 1. "What needs to happen for there to be peace between Palestine and Israel?" 2. "What can Presbyterians do to encourage this to happen?"

Horenstein began by voicing support for a two-state solution, which two others among the speakers also would support.

While desirable, that option, in Horentstein's view, is not possible unless, he said, there is "unequivocal Arab, and especially Palestinian, acceptance of Israel's right to exist."...

...Afranji, a gently-spoken man, a Muslim widely viewed as a thoughtful spokesman for Palestinian perspectives, while sharing Horenstein's belief that a two-state solution is the only viable option, believes that the Palestinian Authority has been clear in its acceptance of Israel.

"I truly in my heart of heart believe, unless there are two states, unless there is a legitimate, sovereign, viable Palestine in the West Bank and Gaza…there will be no peace," said Afranji.

"The Palestinians have made huge concessions, which the world seems always to forget. By recognizing Israel in 78 percent of traditional mandated Palestine, they truly stepped up to the plate and said, 'We are willing to give up all of our dreams, all of our hopes, all of our history,' " said Afranji.

Dudley, the Christian Palestinian, differed sharply on the matter of the two-state solution.

"The two-state solution is a farce that will not lead to lasting peace. Just as the Jews scattered through the world did not forget Palestine/Israel, I surely doubt that Palestine will be wiped from the collective memory of Arabs in the foreseeable future," she said.

Dudely, whose conciliatory opening words were quickly replaced by a fiery stridency before she continued in more quietly impassioned tones, said, "The two-state solution has been tried before. In the American South it was called separate-but-equal and enforced by Jim Crow laws. In South Africa it was called apartheid, and it did not work in either case."

She held up the recent Palestinian elections in which Hamas won a resounding victory as reflecting the unwavering will of the Palestinian people to return to their historic homeland.

"Hamas rejects the idea that Palestinians must be satisfied to be caged in on a fraction of the land that is historical Palestine," said Dudley.

"I think Hamas is on the right path by refusing to recognize the state of Israel and therefore the possibility of a separate state of Palestine. It is on the path to a one-state solution, a single, democratic, secular state for Arabs and non-Arabs, Jews, Muslims and Christians."

Dudley pushed her point too far, in the view of some, when she said, "With every inch of the wall that Israel is building, it is boxing itself in to a corner of history that will shame it as a racist, apartheid state."

When Isaak stood at the lectern after Dudley, he paused in his response to the Presbyterians' questions to say, "I find comparing an effort to disengage and to speak about a two-state solution…to apartheid and our very unfortunate American history of separate-but-equal, as…insulting."...