Bush-Rice’s lexicon during the meetings in Amman and with Abbas is worth noting. “Crushing sanctions” against the Hamas-run Palestine are merely withdrawing aid which should not be handed out in the first place. Relative to its GDP, Palestine receives more aid than any other nation.

Rice spoke of “contiguous” Palestine. She means that Israel should cut herself into with the road connecting Gaza and the West Bank.

Palestinian “extremists” who want to disrupt peace are not a few fringe elements but a major part of the population that voted for Hamas.

Bush believes in a “two-state”’ solution. It’s actually a three-state solution: Israel and the two Palestinian states, namely Jordan and Palestine.

Rice reminded Israel of its obligation to dismantle Jewish settlements in Palestinian lands. Judea is not Palestinian land. Israel should heed Rice’s advice by demolishing the Palestinian settlements in Israel and deporting their inhabitants to Jordan.

Bush believes the Palestinians are better off with their own state. If so, Israel would do her Arabs a favor by deporting them to the sovereign Palestinian state. Israeli Palestinians, however, disagree with Bush and want to stay in Israel.

Bush again insisted on democracy in Palestine. In fact, Palestine is very democratic: it freely elected the Hamas. Bush just does not like the result of that democracy.

Bush wants to support “moderate, reasonable people.” He supports Abbas; the Palestinians support Hamas. Maybe Bush should take out Palestinian citizenship and double Abbas’ electorate to two people?

Faced with the unsolvable fiasco of Iraq, Bush wants to rectify his foreign policy at the expense of a pliable Israel.

You can laugh your socks off or cry your eyes out, but the US pressures North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons by embargoing cognac, cigars, and jet skis. I wonder, was it Bush or Neil Armstrong who came from the Moon?

What could Maliki possibly do to stop the bloodshed in Iraq? Bush might consider the lesson of other cowboys. When a prairie fire threatens, they cut the grass around them and set fire along the perimeter. The fire burns outward and does not threaten them. The prairie, of course, gets burned. Bush might also consider the lesson of the Yosemite rangers: after they suppressed forest fires successfully for years, a tremendous amount of bark and needles accumulated on the ground. Finally, they could not put down the fire, and the compost fed it into a huge conflagration. Now the rangers let small fires burn themselves out. No other prescription exists for Iraq.

Maliki cannot make shiites love sunnis or sunnis turn the other cheek or both adopt tolerant secularism. He can only suppress one group in favor of another. Saddam wisely suppressed both, the shiites more. Democratically elected - thus shiite-based - Maliki’s government tends to oppose the sunnis. Iran supports the shia dominance, and Syria reacts by supporting Iraqi sunnis. Turn off the blender. The bloody cocktail is ready.

Maliki is a puppet dancing on many strings: the US, Iran, and Syria, shia and sunni, fundamentalists and militants. A puppet cannot afford to be tough. Increasing the pressure on militants to stop fighting only provokes them. If Maliki decides to stop the violence, he has to go all the way. He can’t stop until he wipes out the militants without due process or human rights scruples. That might be an option if his Western supporters recognize that the shooting in the streets of Iraqi towns also violates human rights, though of inconspicuous everyday Iraqis rather than media-savvy guerrillas. Violating the guerillas’ human rights is a far lesser evil. Maliki’s chances, however, are running out with the ongoing rapprochement of the Baathist army and the guerrillas. If merged now, they would produce an Iraqi army, but two years later, a heavily armed and well-trained fundamentalist militia.

An enlarged Iraqi army which Hadley’s memo suggests, would become a big guerilla training camp - unless Iraq is divided between shia, sunni, and the Kurds or becomes a dictatorship again. The memo suggests bribing and financing moderate Iraqi political parties. The US tried that approach in Afghanistan and elsewhere and proved it a failure. Loyalty, liberalism, and democracy cannot be bought. Some groups took the American money and proceeded to butcher those they were going to butcher anyway. Others took the money but could not deliver on their promises. It’s very simple for Iraqi parties: kill or be killed. Moderates survive by radicalizing or fall prey to radicals.

Bush refuses to admit that he loosed the genie of religious strife in Iraq which must be beaten back into the bottle. He repeats the mantra of Al Qaeda involvement, though in reality, it is not the major militant group there. Bush also continues to discredit Maliki in Arab eyes by describing him as a friend.

Bush cannot count on Iran, Syria, or Saudi Arabia to pacify Iraq. In the treacherous and opportunist world of Muslim politics, they would use the opportunity to promote themselves and expand their influence in the war-torn country rather than quell the violence and welcome an independent Iraq. Straightforward US politicians cannot swim in the whirlpool of Muslim politics. They welcome the Iranian call to other countries to stop backing terrorists in Iraq without realizing that Iran and the US mean very different people by terrorists. For Iran, the term doesn’t cover shia guerrillas.

Talabani’s visit to Iran was counterproductive. Common Iraqis remember the suffering of the Iran-Iraq war, and Talabani’s fawning visit to Tehran cost him popular support. In return for Talabani’s humiliation, Iran paid lip service to Iraqi security. To imagine that Talabani could persuade the Iranians to stop supporting Iraqi shiite guerrillas is naïve. Violence in Iraq will not stop while US troops are there, and will likely continue for some time after they leave.

Blair was wrong saying at the Latvian summit that NATO’s credibility is on the line in Afghanistan. NATO was created to contain the communist threat and did that marvelously. NATO all but failed in the essentially police action in Yugoslavia and during peacekeeping operations. NATO cannot succeed fighting guerrillas in the Afghan mountains.

Vietnam did not discredit the US army, and Afghanistan won’t discredit NATO. Both were created for large-scale total wars. The best sledgehammer cannot be used to make even the worst furniture.

NATO is a thing of the past, and would better be honorably discharged.

The Roman Emperor Augustus joked that it’s better to be Herod’s pig than his son. Herod did not eat pigs, and they were safe, but he murdered his sons. A judge who cleared the Kurdish PKK off Bush’s terrorist groups list seems to forget the aphorism.

The PKK is credibly implicated in terrorism, weapons and drug trade, and other high crimes. Virtually every civilized country recognizes the PKK as criminal, terrorist group. That doesn’t imply the PKK is evil; perhaps its ends justify the means.

Police detain people who are not yet sentenced by a court and might prove innocent. The judicial system has long shifted the burden of proof in wrongful arrest cases onto plaintiffs who must show the police’s bad intent. It is thus established that law enforcement agencies can act on suspicion to prevent clear and present danger. They are professionals, and their unbiased judgment about clear and present is presumed sound.

The perceived danger is a function of the crime’s severity. Murderers may be arrested on the less suspicion than horse race cheats. Suspected terrorists may be arrested on the slightest evidence. Freezing an organization’s assets is akin to arresting it, a preventive measure. Suspected terrorist activity justifies freezing assets.

Foreign terrorist activity can rarely be proven in civil courts. The difference between war and peacetime, battlefield and domestic justice, has long been recognized; thus military tribunals operate differently from civil courts. The US once abandoned extraditing Bin Laden because no firm evidence existed to convict him. How could anyone prove, according to the high standards of US due process, that the PKK is involved in terrorism? The key people are abroad; the witnesses are dead or bound by the fear of reprisal; written evidence does not exist, and legal wiretaps abroad are impossible; the terrorist organization may not even violate US security. It takes the FBI years to bring US gangs to trial. The gangsters are the US citizens, live and move in America, are open to surveillance and wiretaps. They commit crimes on American soil, not in remote corners of the world. They are driven by greed, not ideology; criminals, not soldiers. Convicting a terrorist organization is qualitatively more difficult than convincing a gang, and there are thousands of terrorist organizations. Prosecuting them in civil courts is not an option; leaving them free to act is no option, either.

Wartime societies face similar questions about enemy military personnel and civilians. Many in the military do not bear weapons, but differentiating them from active shooters is impractical. Killing enemies is therefore accepted as right unless proven clearly wrongful. Affiliation with hostile groups reverses the standard of justice to “guilty until proven innocent.” It is up to the PKK to prove its non-involvement in terrorism.

The current approach of presuming terrorist suspects innocent condemns the American people and American interests worldwide. Terrorists will act against the US and its allies with impunity. The judicial system finds the suffering of innocent but inconspicuous people more acceptable than freezing the assets of terrorist suspects who enjoy publicity.

There is a war going on, and collateral damage is inevitable. Organizations wrongly suspected of terrorism suffer less than other collateral victims, such as dead Iraqi civilians. The US government had no malicious intent toward the Kurds when it listed the PKK among terrorist organizations.

In legalistic states, courts continuously expand their authority. The PKK decision is a worrying example of the US courts asserting their authority over the prosecution of war. Theoretically, courts can even stop military campaigns, especially since the Iraqi war was based on the doctored evidence. The US courts have already asserted their jurisdiction over foreign matters, such as in the case of the Panamian ruler Noriega. Sitting in his peaceful Los Angeles office, one judge decides on military matters and in effect manages the war.

The PKK judgment opens the way for Hamas and PIJ claims.

The Israeli militant group Irgun was demilitarized after the War of Independence. Some of its fighters joined the regular army, while others took peaceful jobs. Hamas differs from Irgun in several aspects. For all its rhetoric, Irgun never aimed at conquering land but rather at countering small-scale Arab violence; after 1948, that need seemingly evaporated. After the 1948 war, the Irgun militia could not possibly fight Arabs; subsequent conflicts were up to regular armies. Hamas, however, could continue to sabotage Israel, notably with suicide bombers. Sponsors largely stopped financing Irgun when its goal was reached in1948; plenty of Muslims will continue to pay Hamas to attack Israel. Menachem Begin saw a place for himself in Israeli politics; Hamas knows that Arab rulers usually exterminate militant opposition rather than integrate it and won’t disarm easily. The Jewish fighters had the culture of learning and work ethics which allowed them to integrate into Israeli society; not the case with many Hamas fighters.

Why did Hamas and PIJ reduce the shelling? Did Abbas miraculously convert them to peace? The truce is only a tactical device. Abbas convinced the other militants to desist for a while so that funds could be unfrozen for their common benefit. The truce will let Hamas bring weapons and explosives from Egypt safely and dig in. How would Israel react to bunkers and tunnels on the Palestinian side of the border? As long as Hamas does not attack, Israel cannot violate the truce. Proponents of the truce forgot what the word means. Truce means both sides lick their wounds and prepare for renewed hostilities.

The original Balfour Declaration earmarked Jordan for Israel. Later, the British carved the Transjordan from Israel for a friendly Arab princeling. Jordan is sparsely populated, economically non-viable, and politically unstable. The monarchy will fall - as they have throughout the world - and democratic elections will bring the Palestinian majority to power. Israel will have a poor, fundamentalist, vengeful state on its border. The failed state of Iraq will supply arms and guerrillas. Israel has troubles with Palestine now; Jordan will become a really big Palestine.

Israel could deport Jordanian Arabs a hundred kilometers to Iraq whose weak government would be unable to counter the relocation. Population transfer is hard. Dealing with an aggressive Palestinian Jordan thirty years from now willf be much harder.

Christian-Muslim Lebanon is a state of wolves and - well, not exactly sheep. The two inherently hostile religious groups cannot live together. Catholics and Protestants fought civil wars in Europe, and Christians and Muslims will fight in Lebanon. Dismantling that state would be a favor to its inhabitants.

Israel needs a buffer zone in the north. Lebanese Christians want their own state - an extremely welcome development for Israel, otherwise the lone non-Muslim entity in the Middle East. Syria rightly considers North Lebanon Syrian territory.

Expansionist Syria is Israel’s natural ally. Israel and Syria share the goal of correcting the colonial powers’ geographical errors. Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq are not viable states. The sooner they are taken off the map, the less blood spilled there.

The outrage at Olmert’s promise of concessions to the Palestinians is odd. He said nothing new. Too many people refused to believe it would happen. After the withdrawal from Gaza and the subsequent escalation of Arab violence, the Israelis imagined their government had learned its lesson and wold not evacuate Judea and Samaria. That belief was evident nonsense. The Israeli government does not care about Jewish land or security, but shows voters and foreign sponsors the feverish action dubbed “the peace process.”

The Jews sat comfortably at home when Olmert announced his plans to surrender Judea and Samaria to the Hamas-run Palestinian state. No significant protests took place. No group tried to take over the Knesset. No one attempted to assassinate Olmert. No systematic campaign was conducted in the army to make sure it would refuse to carry out the shameful eviction of Jews from Judea. Predictably, Olmert proceeded with his plans.

It is comforting to think Olmert is an exceptionally evil ruler. He is not. Save perhaps Yitzhak Shamir and Golda Meir, any other prime minister would have done the same. Israel suffered the largest territorial losses under the ostensibly hawkish Menahem Begin and Ariel Sharon. Concessions are the product of Israeli apathy, the Exile mentality, and the Jewish penchant of appeasing the world. A democratically elected government is no worse than its voters.

Complacency in the face of evil is itself evil. In the Torah, failure to purify oneself is a greater sin than the sin that called for purification. Most Germans only voted for the Nazi government; few manned the gas chambers. Few Israelis would beat the Jews out of Judea and Samaria; many voted for the Kadima.

Back to Olmert’s speech, note that he addressed the Palestinians as “our neighbors.” If only they were his neighbors! Instead, Palestinians are the neighbors of the unfortunate residents of Sderot.

Opening the checkpoints is a dubious measure sure to repeal the advantages of the wall. Israel will either have to let Palestinians in without sufficient security control or show the world media poor Palestinians suffering in mile-long queues at the border. Palestinian employment is not Israeli business; Jewish security is.

Olmert promised to release Palestinian prisoners in return for only a move toward peace. What could the move be? Stop shelling us for a while and get your terrorists back? That’s quite a deal. Conditioning the release of prisoners on the return of Gilad Shalit is an insult to the victims’ relatives. It is apparently okay to kill scores of inconspicuous Jews in terrorist attacks, but kidnapping a soldier who enjoys publicity is a no-no. It is out of love for his son that Gilad’s father shamefully licks Palestinian bottoms, but Olmert’s concern for Shalit caters only to the media.

Hamas will welcome the unfrozen funds. Much of the money will end up in Hamas and PIJ coffers and soon be used to buy more weapons and explosives. It is exceedingly immoral for Israel to send money to Palestine, tacitly sharing it with Hamas and the PIJ; distributing the money among the people of Sderot would be the just solution.

Olmert hinted that Israel will help the Palestinian economy. That won’t succeed. Even Israeli Arabs are at the bottom of economic development. Many of them are well off because Jews buy from them and hire them. In effect, Israeli Arabs are parasites on Jewish taxes, minimum wage, and welfare. To have the entire Palestinian state leeching off Israel is too much economically.

Olmert’s call for a moderate Palestinian government is counterproductive. Hamas will back into the shadows, free of political responsibility and free to stockpile weapons for the next round of confrontation. Abbas, unable to deliver economic or political improvements, will lose credibility. In the end, a refreshed and strengthened Hamas will win the elections again.

Olmert doesn’t know what he wants. He suggests dialogue with Abbas. What about? The Israeli ruling clique has already promised the Arabs just about everything: Gaza, Judea and Samaria, work visas, and money. What else? Olmert wants to hear Abbas promise that the militants won’t come to power in the Palestinian state; Abbas can promise that but cannot deliver.

Perhaps, Olmert imagines Hamas will abandon its militant attitude and the guerrillas will steer the Palestinian economy to capitalist abundance. Hardly so. Or maybe the Palestinian voters will stop supporting Hamas? No, the Palestinians saw that Hamas effectively put Israel her knees and got everything: money, prisoners, likely even statehood - for a flimsy peace treaty.

Israelis cannot count on our government, but we can expect good things from the Palestinian Cabinet. Olmert doesn’t care about national interests, but Mechaal does. Olmert betrays the Jews easily, but perhaps Mechaal will stand up for the Palestinians. If Hamas continues to insist on a truce rather than peace, on return of the 1948 refugees, on Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine, we the Jews need not fear peace with our Arab enemies.

Europeans are concerned that Israel abuses Palestinian terrorists and their civilian supporters. Britain, for its part, dreams of Mandate days when it was master of Palestine and created states like Jordan or Iraq at whim. The British joined the EU initiative of sending observers to Gaza. To observe what? Hamas and the PIJ make no secret of shelling Israel. The observers are actually reporters, entertaining the world with one-sided stories of mad Jews shelling poor terrorist Arab villagers.

Europe is full of Muslims. No mainstream party can afford to alienate Muslim voters. On top of that, Europeans have never particularly liked Jews. Israel is perceived as a US beachhead in the Middle East, naturally opposed by the European powers. Everyone is fed up with Iraqi violence and wants to reduce fighting in the Middle East - at the Jews’ expense. Everyone is concerned with oil prices and wants closer relations with Arab oil racketeers - at the cost of Israeli security.

The EU wants to send peacekeepers to Gaza, technically and morally Israeli territory. Why limit peacekeeping to Gaza? Send European troops to patrol Jerusalem where Arab suicide bombers murder more people than in Sderot. Better still, herd Jews into a ghetto and guard us against the Arabs.

Faced with rampaging crime in New York’s slums, Giuliani flooded the place with police but also actively prosecuted scores of criminals. European observers, peacekeepers, and other supporters will guard their Arab enemies against Israeli retaliation.

Israel is not a Third World nation unable to handle itself and does not require European peacekeeping nannies in Gaza.

Israel is a Jewish, not an ethnic-blind, state. The basic commandments of Judaism are not subject to evaluation by the Knesset. Public flouting of the commandments is prohibited.

Israel adheres to the goal of the Promised Land in its entirety. Israel will not surrender any land she holds.

An independent religious state of Judea is established in Judea and Samaria.

Israeli Arabs are deported to Jordan. Low-level jobs are earmarked for temporary immigrant workers, mostly Hindu and Buddhist.

The non-Jewish population, excluding the spouses of Jews, is capped at 1% of the total number of Israelis. Resident visas are reserved mostly for personnel at non-Jewish places of worship.

Gentile spouses of Jews must adhere to ger tzedek rules. Children of such mixed marriages are recognized as Jewish.

Missionary activity is prohibited. Religions other than Judaism may be practiced in private or inside houses of worship.

Atheist and socialist propaganda is banned from the education system. Children learn Jewish nationalism and moderate religious values. Schools and universities are private, but every Jew is eligible for a thirty-year interest-free education loan from the government.

Communities may become autonomous and set their own rules regarding public appearance, education, religion, admission of new residents, welfare, and local taxes. Communities may not inflict punishments for religious reasons but may expel transgressors.

In security matters, Jewish lives take priority. The Israeli army avoids urban combat regardless of collateral cost to the enemy. Retaliation for terrorist attacks is sufficiently cruel to discourage them. Muslims are held collectively responsible for terrorist attacks.

The Israeli army is reduced to the bare minimum and conscription limited to three months. Israel will use nuclear weapons if attacked by regular armies. If attacked with non-conventional weapons, Israel will retaliate with nuclear weapons against Mecca and other Islamic population centers. If the perpetrators of the attack are unknown, Israel will presume Muslim countries collectively liable.

A Christian buffer state is created in north Lebanon.

Israel refuses aid from foreign governments.

Israel rejects foreign arbitration but settles all matters directly with her neighbors.

The bureaucratic state is dismantled. Israel subscribes to free market doctrines with reasonable ecological, labor, and other kinds of safeguards. Permits are abrogated; liability insurance suffices to conduct any business. The trade union monopoly on labor is banned.

The welfare state is dismantled. Charity is a private affair, and the government offers only last-resort protection. Only people unable to work may ask for welfare funds, and then only for food, clothing, basic health care, and shelter.

The consolidated tax rate is capped at 15%.

With the assassination of Pierre Gemayel, Lebanon hardly heads into civil war. Iran wouldn’t want that. Iran means to manipulate itself into the position of a respectable regional hegemon, not a terrorist state that jump-starts civil wars abroad. Young Assad is smart but so far has not demonstrated his father’s reckless attitude that underpinned Syrian involvement in Lebanon. He wants rapprochement with the West, and a guerrilla war would impede his policy of whitewashing Syria. Israel abandoned the South Lebanon Army and would hardly bankroll a Christian army now. Hezbollah expects to take the state over democratically and doesn’t want a civil war that would derail its plans for governing Lebanon legally. Christians accept Hezbollah, especially when it distributes Iranian money.

Israel must partition Lebanon with Syria, and set up a Christian state between them. Alternatively, the West could pour enough money into Lebanon through the existing government to bribe voters away from Iran and Hezbollah. Otherwise, Lebanon is going to become a shia state or slip into another civil war.