From the perspective of Palestinians and Arabs, the latest U.S. moves to bring peace to the middle east are an important step forward -- but a step that still falls short of meeting essential needs. As this represents real progress, there is some reason for hope, but only if negotiations continue on a new level of understanding. PNS commentator Rami G. Khouri is a Palestinian-Jordanian syndicated political columnist, author, and television talk show host.

The proposals put forward by U.S. President Bill Clinton as "parameters" for a comprehensive Palestinian-Israeli peace accord are important, constructive, and telling, but not compelling, comprehensive, or acceptable from the Palestinian and Arab perspective.

The American ideas are important because they indicate the persistent determination of the world's lone superpower to foster a negotiated peace accord that tries to consider the rights and goals of both Israelis and Palestinians.

They are constructive because they move a little bit more toward a balanced position that acknowledges the equal rights, national and spiritual, of Palestinians and Israelis.

And they are telling because they start to distill the convergence of both sides on the core issues, indicating a guide to continued negotiations.

They are not comprehensive because they explicitly reject the Palestinian right of return that is crucial for the Arab side. And they are not acceptable because they broadly reflect greater sensitivity to and affirmation of Israeli security concerns, while making Palestinian gains generally conditional upon Israeli demands.

For those like myself who prefer to see the full rather than the empty half of the glass, these American parameters are striking for what they illustrate about how far we have all moved, a dramatic illustration of the capacity of the two antagonists and the principal mediator to make continuous and swift progress on core issues, such as settlements, sovereignty, security, and Jerusalem. Yet they also highlight the pivotal gap that remains on the central issue of the rights of the Palestinian refugees.

The good news from all this is that a deeply engaged U.S. president can be a positive element, if this engagement aims to affirm international legitimacy and UN resolutions rather than to engineer a diplomatic detour around them.

The bad news is that if American ideas remains visibly skewed in favor of the Israeli position, we will not soon achieve a permanent peace; rather, we are all likely to continue suffering the increasingly violent mutual consequences of occupation, colonialism, and armed resistance.

The most problematic element in American thinking is the concept that implementing the Palestinian refugees' right of return would "undermine the very foundations of the Israeli state." A better approach would be to urge Israel to accept in principle UN General Assembly Resolution 194Ç affirming the Palestinian right of return, and then promote negotiations on implementing that right in a manner that cements the fundamental principle that a permanent peace would result in mutual recognition and coexistence by Israeli and Palestinian sovereign states that both enjoy geographic and demographic integrity.

It can be done, if there is a willingness to try. Israel and the United States seem unwilling to take this last, major diplomatic step forward.

Americans and Israelis often quip, quoting Abba Eban, that the Palestinians "never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity" for peace-making. The Arab counterpoint to this is that the American and Israelis never miss an opportunity to miss the point about what peace-making must achieve for any accord to be acceptable and durable.

The point is that the Palestinians require reasonable, realistic justice in resolving their national eviction and dispersal -- relocation and job training alone will not do.

Recent talks highlight above all the importance of time as an element in resolving this conflict. Time is a constructive element if it is a catalyst for reasonable compromises, which is the case to date as a comparison of these American ideas with the Carter administration proposals at Camp David I dramatically shows. The logical conclusion from the Arab side is that more time will probably lead to even better, more equitable, suggestions and proposals.

But time can also work against the interests of both sides, for more years of conflict can harden positions. If mutual violence persists, which is likely, it can also stiffen public opinion in Israel and Palestine, add a stringent religious dimension to the conflict, enhance mutual resort to militarism, and erode the commitment to a negotiated solution.

History affirms the importance of exploiting diplomatic opportunities when they arise. But history also reveals that new and better diplomatic opportunities will keep arising, as long as both sides suffer the consequences of continued strife and the denial of their national rights and hopes.