In 1988, the Palestine Liberation Organisation, led by Yasser Arafat, recognised Israel's right to exist and Israeli sovereignty over 78% of Palestine. It was an historic compromise. And in the early '90s, a breakthrough for peace seemed possible.

It was in a room in a Jerusalem hotel that the first direct talks between Israeli and Palestinian officials took place in 1991. These led to further meetings and an agreement in the Norwegian capital, Oslo, that set up an autonomous mini-state in the territories occupied by Israel since 1967.

For Yasser Arafat and his people, it was seen as a beginning. But the reality was different. What the majority of Palestinians got was a classic colonial fix. Arafat and his elite got the trappings and privileges of power, while the mass of the people got what one Israeli journalist called "the autonomy of a prisoner of war camp".

In July 2000, the two sides met in America to reach a final agreement. But among the issues they discussed was a profound disagreement about just how much land was on offer.

Israel's Prime Minister at the time, Ehud Barak, claimed he'd offered the Palestinians almost all the occupied territories back and said that Arafat had rejected this. In reality, the Israelis were expanding more and more illegal settlements on Palestinian land, even during the negotiations. Add to that the special access roads with their checkpoints, and the Palestinians say that all that was left was a group of colonies with their borders patrolled by military bases.

Israeli historian Ilan Pappe explains how, despite Barak's claims to the contrary, the proposal was deeply flawed:

"The Israelis who dictated this offer in the summer of 2000 are not even talking about a proper state. We are talking? of a stateless state, I would call it. A Bantustan with no genuine sovereignty. With no independent foreign, economic or political policies, with no proper capital and at the mercy of the Israeli security services and Israeli policy."

Not only that, but there is now documented evidence that the Palestinians had made an extraordinary offer to the Israelis, conceding even more of their land. But this was not news at the time.

JP: When will Israel agree to negotiate with the Palestinians, not for what they call a few Bantustans on the West Bank, but for a state that is as peaceful, as secure, above all, as independent as Israel itself?

DG: Do you want Israel to? concede the terms of that negotiation up front on television? Or is it better to agree to the general principle and then sit with the Palestinians in a face to face negotiation once they stop violence against us?

JP: But what about this? The general principle, then, of a state as independent as Israel.

DG: We do not need a string of adjectives to agree to.

JP: Well that's a fair principle, isn't it? What's? a state worth if it isn't independent?

DG: What we're speaking about is our willingness to negotiate with the Palestinians their self-government and we are willing to create a Palestinian self-governing entity - some call it a Palestinian state - which will address the real needs of the Palestinians.

JP: What right have you to create somebody else's homeland?

DG: Well, we are being asked to negotiate that. We are willing to be part of that, we are willing to make a contribution to that. We are not going to up-front go into details about its geographic configuration or its powers. That's part of the negotiation.

The Holocaust

Until recently, Israel has enjoyed almost an immunity from criticism among Western politicians. This has been largely due to a fear of being labelled anti-Semitic - a fear manipulated by the Israeli government and its foreign lobbies.

Israeli historian Professor Ilan Pappe comments, "I think the Holocaust memory does not allow any moral criticism of anything that Israel does? If you do criticise Israel, you are immediately charged with anti-Semitism."

For Ishay Rosen-Zvi, the irony of this situation is bitter: "This is? a huge bluff? of the Israeli establishment, that every? criticism of its policy is anti-Semitism. And criticising? your government, your country's policy is, today, I think the only patriotic thing one can do".

Perhaps compounding the fear created by the Holocaust is fear of what the Palestinians will do to them if Israel allows them to grow in strength, a fear encapsulated by the phrase "we'll be pushed into the sea".

Rami Elhanan, father of a suicide bomb victim, has little time for such arguments.

"By who? By [a] mosquito? We are the most powerful power in the Middle East, we have one of the greatest and more powerful armies in the world. In [its] last operation there were four divisions, armoured divisions, against some 500? armed people? It's a laugh. Who will push us into the sea?"

Afterword - John Pilger

It is not surprising that the Jewish people of Israel should feel insecure. No-one should ever forget that the most devastating genocide in human history happened only two generations ago.

But a true sensitivity to that awful memory comes from the same basic humanity that recognises the suffering of the Palestinian people and the courage of their endurance.

The truth is that Israelis will never have peace until they recognise that Palestinians have the same right to the same peace and the same independence that they enjoy.

Recently that great voice of freedom, Archbishop Desmond Tutu asked this. "Have the Jewish people of Israel forgotten their collective punishment? Their home demolitions? Their humiliations? So soon?"

Israel's own dissenting voices have not forgotten, and those who speak out in this film honour the best traditions of Jewish humanity. If Rami, the man who lost a young daughter in a suicide attack, can understand the root cause of the violence here, isn't it time that others broke their silence? The occupation of Palestine should end now.

Then the solution is clear: two countries - Israel and Palestine - neither dominating or menacing the other. Is that impossible or is history to witness the consequences of yet another silence?