When compared to the other problems Israel faces; the intricate on/off, behind the scene peace negotiations with Syria, talks that almost everyone seems opposed to, from the George W. Bush administration to the Islamists of Hamas, the Syrian dispute is simpler. Or is it?

Major General Giora Eiland, former director of Israel's National Security Council, believes it is simpler.

"It is a territorial dispute between two countries. We call it the Golan, they call it the 'Jolan.'" There is the problem of water. Is it achievable? "Yes." But there are four good reasons why the Israeli government is not excited about the proposal, said Eiland, who was addressing a symposium on conflict resolution organized by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies in Geneva last weekend.

1. It will not help the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

2. It will not help the Iran issue.

3. It will not solve the problem of Hezbollah in Lebanon.

4. And even if we solve the problem with the Syrians, it is not going to help solve the others. Then there is the security risk, it might increase the risk of war. The other reason is that the United States asks us not to do anything.

Or, for example, when compared to the situation with its northern neighbor, Lebanon, said Eiland.

Lebanon is a very special state, there is democracy. The government of Lebanon represents a moderate and positive state. But this is an illusion. Lebanon is controlled by Hezbollah. No decision in Lebanon can be reached without Hezbollah. Hezbollah is stronger than the army. They are part of the official government of Lebanon but they represent a very different view.

If another war between Hezbollah and Israel emerges tomorrow Israel cannot win, said the Israeli official.

This organization operates from a different state. Yet the organization is fully supported by the state. As long as this is the situation, you are doomed to fail.

Hezbollah is very indifferent to loss of life and to loss of armament, we can reach a peace agreement with Syria -- but this is not the time, he said.

Indeed, when comparing the four dossiers, despite its complications, the simplest seems to be the stand-off with the Palestinians. The end result is known by both sides: a Palestinian state, living in peace next door to Israel. So why is this not becoming a reality?

"The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one that everyone wants to solve," said Eiland, who offered an outstanding analysis of Israel's current state of affairs, detailing the four dossiers mentioned above, all in the 20 minutes he was allocated. His analysis was crystal clear, it was concise, it was almost thorough and it was, for the most part, correct and practically unbiased. Not an easy task by any means. It was easy to understand how he got to be director of Israel's National Security Council when he can brief in such a manner. But there was a major element missing from his presentation.

In the general's defense, I will say time was not a luxury he was given at the Global Strategic Review meeting.

"It is important to solve this problem more than any other one," said Eiland, speaking of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And the blueprint was already drafted by former U.S. President Bill Clinton, "who gave the most intelligent detailed proposal on how to solve the conflict" in the final days of his administration.

"At the end of the day the solution will be very similar to the very intelligent proposal put forward by Clinton," said Eiland. "At the end of the day whatever solution they reach will be 5 percent here, 2 percent there different," but it will be Clinton's plan.

So why is the problem not being solved? Everyone agrees to the two-state solution. What is holding up the process? Eiland thinks because a solution is not truly desired by both sides.

In fact, what other excuse could leaders on both sides give for economic hardships, for example, when war, martial law and/or a state of emergency can no longer apply?

The real reason given by Eiland is this: "The maximum the Israeli government can offer the Palestinians and survive politically is far less than the minimum the Palestinians can accept to survive."

Let me say it again: The most Israel can offer remains unacceptable to the Palestinians and the least the Palestinians can accept remains too much for the Israelis to offer. Are you confused yet? Welcome to the Middle East peace talks.

What is the conclusion? Perhaps the time has not come yet for a final peace deal between the Palestinians and the Israelis?

In the final analysis, whether they agree on a two-state solution or another formula is reached, it is ultimately in Israel's best interest to reach that agreement sooner rather than later.

If, as Gen. Eiland pointed out, Israel faces four major problems, there is one more file he omitted to mention, perhaps because of the amount of time allocated to him.

Here is what was missing, in this writer's opinion: The demographic time bomb confronting Israel. This is a three-faced issue:

First, the dilemma Israel faces at home with the Israeli-Arab population living in Israel proper. It is growing at a faster rate than the Jewish one.

Second, the rapidly growing demographics in the West Bank, but more particularly, in Gaza.

And third, the changing demographics in the United States where the Arab American vote is beginning to grow and starting to get organized. How many years before it too outnumbers the Jewish vote? A decade? Two decades? More?

The real enemy of Israel is time. Much like Gen. Eiland at the Geneva meeting, time is a luxury Israel cannot afford to waste. This is probably a good time to go over the minimum that is acceptable and revisit the maximum that can be offered.