I am sorry to tell you Mr. Abu Mazen, Chairman of the PA, that most Israelis do not believe you are sincere about a 2 state solution.

Like at least 62% Israelis, I supported the Oslo agreement and believed it opened a new era in Israeli- Palestinian relations. Like many others, I became disillusioned. The terror, the incitement against Israelis and Jews did not stop.

It was the PA policy that brought time and again the right wing to power in Israel. The PA policy contributed to the collapse of the moderate Zionist Left. (http://rslissak.com/content/who-resposible-continuous-israeli-palestinia...).

Arafat's rejection of the Clinton- Barak proposal in 2000 without proposing any other option, his insistence on the "right of return" to Israel, and the intifada that followed, convinced us that Arafat did not give up his dream to eliminate the Jewish state, and establish a Palestinian state from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River.

We believe you are against terror, but from the worng reasons. We suspect the reason you are against terror is the realization that terror does not serve well the interests of the Palestinians.

Your policy is to demonize Israel through a systematic campaign around the world of incitement, lies and false accusations in order to bring to Israel's de- legitimation.

In your interview to the "Washington Post" on May 2009 you admitted that Prime Minister Ehud Ulmert went beyond the Camp David proposal. Yet, you gave no statement of agreement.

We suspect you are not interested in indirect or direct negotiations. Your tactics is to squeeze from Israel concessions, without any agreement.

Your conditions for agreement to talk are unacceptable. The settlement issue should be part of the talks, not a pre- condition, in hope that the Israeli right wing will "do the work for you."

Like 62% of Israelis, I never supported settlements but I do not approve your tactics.

Palestinians could have a state long ago, but their leaders have been more interested in the elimination of the Jewish state than in a compromise and an agreement to a 2 state solution.

You could have a state according the Peel Committee proposal in 1936/7, in 1947 according the UN resolution, between 1948 – 1967, when the Western Bank and Gaza Strip were under Arab rule, in 1967 when Prime Minister Levi Eshkol proposed "land for peace," in 2000 at Camp David, and in 2009 when you did not respond to Ulmert's proposal.

According to the Al Haiat newspaper you agree to the Clinton- Barak proposal on the settlement issue (territorial compensation for the settlements). This means that 10 years of conflict could be prevented and it is the PA responsibility for the continuation of the conflict.

We, the supporters of a 2 state solution, want to get a formal statement on your proposal for a peace agreement. Your interview to the Israel press this week gave us no indication about your solution to the conflict. We read the platform of the Fatah conference on Aug 2009. The document is too ambiguous and so are you.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2009/0811/p06s04-wome.html :
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/05/world/middleeast/05fatah.html

We want an answer to the main issue:
Are you going to agree to settle the refugees in the Palestinian state?
Are you going to take partial responsibility for the Palestinian refugee problem?
Are you going to recognize Israel as the National Jewish state, just as we recognize Palestine as the National Palestinian state?
Are you going to declare that a peace agreement means you have no more demands from Israel?
Unless you give direct answers to these questions we will continue to suspect that your goal is to put an end to the Jewish state.

A good start will be to accept the Clinton- Barak proposal as a just solution for both sides, and as a base for further negotiations.