The Palestinians' friends ask them to do certain things, while their enemies warn them of doing others. In the meantime, the Palestinians' enemies threaten to punish them for actions undertaken by one individual with the support of no more than a dozen others.

These, unfortunately, are all different aspects of the skewed view of Palestinian society ­ as a society that can be led unquestioningly by a single viewpoint. In other words, both the Palestinians' friends and enemies perceive them as a monolithic whole ­ a dictatorship that obeys the words of a single leader.

The fact of the matter is that Palestinian society is extremely politicized, which makes it full of different (and often contradictory) political and logistical ideas on how to conduct the struggle with Israel. In addition, Israel's success in using violence to found a nation and disperse the Palestinian people has caused a certain sector of Palestinian society to copy it blindly. Moreover, many Palestinians have despaired of the very idea of peace, thanks to 50 years of betrayal and treachery by the Great Powers.

For example, it is not at all correct to say (as Israel maintains) that Yasser Arafat could prevent suicide attacks from taking place. Israel even holds Arafat responsible for attacks carried out by Hamas ­ and then emasculates the very Palestinian security force it expects to prevent such attacks from taking place. These suicide bombings or shootings are usually followed by a regime of collective punishment against all Palestinians, which includes blockades, curfews and armed strikes targeting children. All this to avenge acts of resistance carried out against Israelis (both in the Occupied Territories or in 1967 Israel) that were not planned and perhaps not even supported by the victims of "Israeli retaliation."

On the other hand, we have the Palestinians' so-called friends demanding that they adopt a unified position and a single program of action. These demands are not directed at the majority of Palestinians; no, all Palestinians are asked to adopt a single position, since they all have been suffering. These demands ignore the fact that different human beings perceive things differently. In fact, because of their traumatic history, the Palestinians are less likely than other peoples to agree to adopt unified positions.

In politically stable countries, there are almost no differences between major parties. Palestinians, Israelis, Indians, and other peoples living in areas of tension express amazement at the noisy political arguments that go on in the US, Britain, Germany, and other stable societies that believe they have problems. If these societies realized what others are going through, they would see how trivial their own problems are.

There are many Palestinian factions and movements, with different ­ and sometimes clashing ­ ideologies and outlooks. Each of these has its own outside connections with sides hostile to each other. Even when most Palestinian factions were united under the PLO umbrella, not all Palestinians agreed with the course pursued by the organization. Not many people recognize that the sum total of supporters of all religious, secular, leftist, and anarchist movements is barely more than a quarter of the Palestinian people. Yet this is what opinion polls ­ and the only election held in the West Bank and Gaza Strip ­ tell us.

In contrast to other democracies, the Palestinians cannot hold free elections under occupation and in exile. That was why armed factions ­ which usually represent people of average intelligence ­ always had the upper hand.

Under pressure from friend and foe alike, the Palestinians tried over the whole of last year to unite. Major Palestinian factions held many meetings, most recently last October in Cairo when Fatah and Hamas met under Egyptian stewardship. Yet these meetings all failed to produce an agreement, since circumstances on the ground had not changed.

Hamas, like Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his Likud Party, ­ rejects the Oslo Accords, and is not prepared to pursue their path. By contrast, Islamic Jihad and the Democratic Front are prepared to accept a just peace that restores the territories occupied in 1967 to the Palestinian people and ensures the establishment of a Palestinian state that would negotiate outstanding issues with Israel. Fatah, meanwhile, is split, with supporters of both points of view among its ranks. All these parties have Arab and Muslim connections that differ among themselves regarding the best way to settle the conflict.

What further complicates matters is Israel's deliberate policy of pouring fuel on the fire whenever the situation calms down. This, together with the absence of international agreement on the shape of a political settlement, allows each party to believe that it can realize all its aims with no need for compromise.

As a matter of fact, Sharon wants the situation to remain tense in order to enhance his election chances. He wants to further radicalize Palestinian society and encourage feelings of revenge among Palestinians so as to destroy the Palestinians' quest for democracy and the chances for holding Palestinian elections.

On the other hand, Hamas does not distinguish between the Likud and Labor. Given the choice, Hamas would prefer to see Sharon remain in office so that he can complete the process of dismantling the peace process (which it believes offers too many concessions to Israel).

American and Israeli conditions for resuming the peace process (essentially anti-Hamas) cannot be fulfilled by Arafat precisely because of the situation created by Israel. By its hostility to any chance for peace, attacks on Palestinian security forces, destruction of the Palestinian economy and making intolerable the lives of ordinary people, Israel has played into Hamas' hands and has diminished Arafat's ability to influence events.

Palestinian politics is in need of a combination of factors that are extremely difficult to assemble: regular elections free of the shackles of Israeli occupation, and guarantees of a peaceful settlement under UN supervision that would protect each side from the other, punishing transgressors but without resort to collective punishment.

Only through such a combination of measures can radical forces opposed to peace on both sides be marginalized. In other words, there is a role for the international community to play. The United States cannot go on arming and bankrolling one side, not pressing for peace, and feigning neutrality, and then expect to escape the consequences of such a policy.