"I love humanity, it's people I can't stand!" declares the hero of an American comic strip. The attitude of a part of the Israeli left is rather similar: "I love the Palestinians, it's Arafat I cant stand."

Some of the most important commentators, defined as "leftist", are joining forces in a wild attack on the Palestinian president. It's all his fault. He prevents an agreement. He is not ready for the "hard decisions" (American version). He is not ready for the "historic compromises" (Israeli version). This is "foolish obstinacy", an unforgivable sabotage of Barak heroic efforts.

The attacks are so similar, that one could suspect that one and the same person is writing all of them. And this is indeed not far from the truth: all of them are inspired by the Prime Minister's office.

Barak himself explained the matter to me in a visual way. "We and the Palestinians must meet on the way. Not at the exact middle, they must get more than half. But they too must give." His hands clarified the meaning: The left hand approached the right, and stopped near-by. Meaning: Israel will give up most of the Left Bank, the Palestinians will give up a part of it.

That's logical, isn't it? We give up much, they give up a little. So how does this obstinate person, Arafat, dare to reject such a generous offer? He deserves every denunciation. Especially when the commentators - and, I am afraid, Barak too - lack any understanding of the Palestinians' feelings.

I suggest a simple exercise. Take a sheet of paper. Fold it in the middle. That's the UN resolution of 1947 - half the country (plus) for the Jewish state, half (minus) to the Arab state. Now fold it the folded paper again. That's the situation after the 1948 war: the territory earmarked for the Arab state is cut again nearly in half. Half is conquered by Israel, half remains to the Arabs. This half is conquered by Israel in 1967. Now fold again: this is the Barak compromise. A great part of the West Bank will remain under Israeli control in various ways (outright annexation of "settlement blocs", by-pass roads, 99 years rent, continued "security control" etc.), a little more then half will go to the Palestinian state.

Now open the paper and see what remains for the Palestinians after the last folding: an eighths of the land. Something like 13% (thirteen per cent!) of the land between the Jordan river and the sea.

This is the abysmal difference between the Israeli and the Palestinian perception. The Israelis say: "Let bygones be bygones. 88% of the land is already in our hands. So let's compromise about the 22% which remain." The Palestinians say: "By accepting the Green Line, we give up 88% of our homeland. That is the compromise."

Can such an abyss be bridged? Perhaps there is a possibility of an agreed swap of territories (as Barak offers the Syrians, but refuses to offer to the Palestinians). Anyhow, the State of Palestine must consist of a continuous territory, and not be an archipelago of enclaves, each surrounded by Israeli territory, connected to each other (in the best case) by bridges hovering above Israeli roads. Between Gaza and the West Bank there must be really safe passages. There can be no Israeli control of the border crossings between Palestine, Jordan and Egypt, nor over the seaport and airport.

Furthermore, no Palestinian leader will ever give up East Jerusalem. Such surrender would not only seal his physical fate, it would besmirch his memory in history. Abu-Dis will never be a substitute for al-Kuds. Perhaps there is a possibility of a temporary compromise: the Haram al-Sharif (Temple Mount) will belong to the State of Palestine, the Arab quarters will be administratively connected with it.

No Palestinian leader will ever sign a document declaring that the conflict has come to an end, without solving the refugee problem. Even if Barak would take Antoine Lahad and appoint him President of Palestine, he would not be able to sign such a declaration. It's simply impossible to make peace with three million Palestinians, and to leave four million outside the agreement. A creative solution, accepted by the refugees themselves, is needed.

These, then, are the parameters of a compromise. True, there is no symmetry. The Palestinians have next to nothing to give. The goods are all in our hands. But we do not talk about a business transaction, but about the historic reconciliation between two peoples, putting an end to a 118-years long conflict. What looks to Israelis like Arafat's "foolish obstinacy" is, in reality, the most moderate possible Palestinian attitude.