The notion that for Sharon to simply "declare victory" over terrorism when victory has not yet been won would not be interpreted as a sign of weakness, is absurd.



Israel, having inflicted upon the Palestinians a dictatorship of terrorists who have terrorized the Palestinian population even more than the Israelis, kidnapped Palestinian children into an "educational" system that is nothing more than a training camp in terror and hate, has an obligation to do more for the Palestinians than just abandon them to the terrorists. Israel must kill or imprison the terrorists and help democratic Palestinians renew Palestinian civil society.



Once that is done, then it will be time for Palestinian statehood.

In other words: never? So long as Israel is there and killing Palestinians, even if they deserve it, they'll breed opposition.

That's beautiful, pj. And in fact, many Palestinians will agree with you (since always blaming someone else is the name of the game---and fortunately, there's always someone else to blame).



Yep, it's those Israelis (those devils!) who foisted Arafat on the world's most victimized people (with the connivance of the good old US of A) precisely so that Israel (and the US) could continue to oppress them. (EU, take note---it may be time to jettison old Yasir.)



And when those Israelis aren't promoting and supporting and doing world-wide PR for Arafat, they're creating Hamas (pretty clever, those Israelis).



And yes, it's Israel that's responsible for the welfare of Palestinians (they may want to destroy Israel, but heck, they're people too. With feelings).



Well, we did sort of give them lots of guns, but that didn't work like it was supposed to (should have given 'em tanks, I guess---missiles they can get elsewhere). Paid 'em lots of money (but of course we owed 'em more than we could ever give 'em I suppose). Persuaded international institutions and companies to invest in them (but so what, that was in Israel's interest, wasn't it?).



Difficult situation, because the only thing that'll really make 'em happy is for Israel to disappear. Could happen, though.



Finally, justice, peace and tranquility....

I'm not saying there aren't many -- even a majority -- of Palestinians, plus Europeans and Arabs and Americans (see Clinton, W.J.) who share culpability. The Israelis are the good guys. But so too are the Palestinian democrats. Have you noticed how effectively Israel has been tracking and killing terrorists? That's because ordinary Palestinians are helping them. They're doing it because they're on the side of freedom, and want to be liberated, and know that only Israel will do it.



The time has come to kill Arafat, as well as every known leader of Hamas, Fatah, Al Aqsa, etc.; to establish firm principles of free speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of commerce; to replace the educational system with a civilized one, imprisoning any teachers who teach terror; and to protect moderate Palestinians from murder, so that every Palestinian murdered for "collaborating" with Israel is avenged, and his killers brought to justice. And this needs to continue until ordinary Palestinians can speak freely and worship freely, without fear of violence. When that is the case, then Israel can endow the Palestinian state with a democratic constitution and leave.



And if it never gets cleaned up, then they can hand it over to Jordan -- far better than entrusting a state to terrorist Palestinians.



Barry, appeasement was wicked because it failed to recognize evil. There is an equivalent wickedness that fails to recognize goodness in ordinary Palestinians, and makes no effort to be generous to it. The appeasement of the wicked must end, but also the lack of charity to the good must end. By consistently rewarding the good and punishing the evil, justice and peace can
come.

(1) Man, how can you write without irony that Israel should establish "the firm principles of free speech..." but should also start "imprisoning any teachers who teach terror"?



(2) Israel could try to impose a new educational system on the Palestinians, but Palestinian parents might simply refuse to send their children to school.

Well, perhaps refusing to fund schools that teach terror, and destroying textbooks that preach terror, would be wiser. Still, what the Palestinian Authority has established now is a system in which every school has terrorists affiliated with it, who play on immature children, telling them that if they don't kill themselves in order to kill Jews that they're betraying God and country, and training them in bombing and other terrorist arts. Such people are in fact terrorists, not teachers, and deserve imprisonment.



What are the alternatives to this sort of engagement? With separation, the choices are stark: reply to attacks with mass bombings, killing many innocents as well as the guilty; or submit to bombings without reply, and eventually be destroyed. At least direct engagement makes it possible to winnow out the guilty from the innocent, and punish the guilty, while encouraging the innocent.

pj:



there's plenty of reason to believe that being handed a state would be an event of such importance that it might serve to turn Palestinian fury inwards. You can't demand a state for fifty years and not have it affect you at all when you get it.



And if terrorism continues, there's a far more elegant response than "taking it" or attacking Palestine--how about attacking Hezbollah in Lebanon or Syria itself? Tell the radicals that every time a bomb goes off in Israel someone is going to be struck outside of Palestine. That's both divisive and necessary 9once some kind of peace comes between Israel and Palestine the Israelis will have to reckon with South Lebbanon).

Of course the US part of this war is to defeat the terror sponsors outside Israel/Palestine. We're doing our part now with Iraq.



It seems to me we're agreed about (a) the need for war to end terrorism and (b) the need for a Palestinian state before peace is at hand. We're disagreed on the tactical order of action. I think it's much better to defeat the Palestinians first, then give a democratic state as a gift, than to give them a terrorist-run dictatorship first planning to then fight a war in the likely event that terror continues. The second alternative strikes me as eerily similar to the Oslo process, which has been a dismal failure.

This is all a pipe dream. Sharon isn't in a position to give up the settlements now. He needs the religious activists' support, and they don't want to abandon Hebron and other important religious centers. Labour won't join a coalition, and the religious yahoos preclude Shinui's participation. If Sharon tries to pull off any kind of withdrawal from Hebron or Jerusalem, his government will collapse.



Sharon also wants to hold on to the Jordan valley and its water resources. He can't do that by pulling out completely, so some kind of presence will always be necessary in these regions.



Essentially, things are going to get locked up, and once it passes the point of inseparability, the Palestinians are going to wise up and simply ask for Israeli citizenship, and there'll be no way Israel could deny it and plausibly continue to claim they're the only democracy in the MidEast.

I think ther's been too much collateral damage over the years for the Palestinians to consider that.

Nor would Israelis consider it - about as long as they'd consider giving citizenship to 3 million former Nazis.



Derek, I find it odd that you think limiting Mexican immigration is our right as Americans, but that Israeli democracy would somehow be illegitimate if it doesn't extend citizenship to Arab Muslims.



Also, Sharon does not need the religious fundamentalists -- he can form a center-right coalition with 63 seats of 120 in the Knesset without Labor or the nationalist religious parties. He will probably take some nationalist partners, but on his terms. Shinui will join with religious nationalists, despite pre-election rhetoric.

Derek:



You also continue to insist that when Israel does declare a Palestinian state it must grant them the borders the PLO dreams of. Israel can keep Jerusalem, or most of it, and any other terrotory that it considers vital and just tell the nation of Palestine they'll have to take it in open warfare if they want it. That's the whole point of acting unilaterally.



However, I think you're right about the very real danger to Israel of the Palestinians simply asking for full rights as citizens of Israel. It is that threat which makes giving them a state as quickly as possible so attractive.

I suspect that once the US "cleans up" Iraq, it'll turn its attention to the Israel-Palestine morass and impose, or try to impose something on both sides.



No more of this negotiation crap. But the results won't really be much different than Oslo, much to the surprise of everyone.



Pure speculation, of course.

Barry - yes - Arafat, Fatah, and Hamas have been close allies of Saddam - once Saddam is gone, and European support for the Iraq war no longer so critical, I see no reason why we cannot move firmly against them. But I think the Palestinian terrorists are much weaker than you realize. It may take a few years, but they will collapse like a house of cards. Their rejection by the Palestinian people has already begun.