A Tale of Two Presidents

The Tomorrow Conference, held in Jerusalem during the month of May, was the brainchild of Israeli President Shimon Peres. The three-day event brought together world leaders, leading thinkers and academics, and figures in the fields of technology, medicine and education. The distinguished invitees to the conference discussed the world economy, Jewish education, advances in the fields of science and medicine, methods of environmental protection, just to name a few of the many topics that were featured on the agenda.

Many described the event as a success, and it was certainly a feather in Peres's cap. With all due respect to Reuven Rivlin and Colette Avital, the two MKs that challenged Peres for the presidency, only Peres, with his international stature, could have made an event on the scale of the Tomorrow Conference into a reality.

Contrast this with newly installed Lebanese President Michel Suleiman. According to media reports in Israel, the former head of the Lebanese Army has planned to personally welcome soon-to-be-freed terrorist Samir Kuntar back to Lebanon. Kuntar is expected to be released in the coming days, in exchange for what are presumed to be the bodies of Israeli reservists Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev. Kuntar, a Druse, has sat in Israeli prison ever since 1979.

What landed Kuntar in prison? On April 22nd, 1979, Kuntar led a terrorist cell that infiltrated the Northern Israeli town of Naharia. The men initially opened fire on a police vehicle, murdering one officer. They then attacked the home of the Haran family, with Kuntar later shooting dead the father Danny, and murdering his four year-old daughter Einat by smashing her skull with his rifle. The family's other daughter, two year-old Yael, suffocated to death when she hid in the apartment with her mother.

Kuntar enjoys widespread popularity amongst the Lebanese people as evidenced by the fact that Suleiman is not the only politician planning to greet Lebanon's newest national hero. Druse political leader Walid Jumblatt has also announced that a delegation from his party will welcome Kuntar home. Western-backed Prime Minister Fuad Seniora, has likewise praised Hezbollah "because it secured national goals which Israel always refused to respect." Everyone wants to have their picture taken with the returning hero.

The differences between the two presidents could not be more telling. While Israel's president has dedicated his time and energy to bringing together the best and brightest minds to advance the causes of medicine, science, education and the protection of the environment, the Lebanese president has been trying to reserve his seat at Hezbollah's infanticide festival.

The Lebanese people plan to put their moral inferiority on display next week, by celebrating Samir Kuntar as a national hero. Israelis and Lebanese will only enjoy peace when the latter recognize Samir Kuntar and his comrades as the monsters they truly are.

The Root of the Problem

"...I have placed life and death before you, blessing and curse; and you shall choose life..." (Deuteronomy 30:19)


Husam Dawiyat. That is the name of the latest monster to spring up from one of the Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem and go on a killing spree in the city's center. Just a few minutes walk from where Ala Abu Dhaim murdered 8 students at Yeshivat Mercaz HaRav in March, Dawiyat went on a rampage with the help of a bulldozer. Dawiyat murdered 3 and wounded close to 50 as he crushed cars, charged at pedestrians and flipped a bus. Ironically, one of the two men who shot and killed Dawiyat, happens to be the brother-in-law of the army officer who killed Abu Dhaim.

It is important to view this attack in the context of Dawiyat's motives. Since this father of two from the Jerusalem village of Tzur Baher cannot speak for himself, we can only guess at what might have driven him to murder. Perhaps he felt that the number of roadblocks Israel recently agreed to remove was insufficient. Surely this justifies repeatedly ramming a women in her car with a bulldozer. Or perhaps it was Israel's "outrageous" decision to continue building homes in the capital's Jewish neighborhoods. Is there any more of a righteous response than to flip a bus on its side, sending passengers flying through the air? Conceivably, today's attack may have come as a cry against Israel's "apartheid wall". Who wouldn't view trying to kill a baby or two as a legitimate form of protest against such a "heinous" act?

Or maybe, just maybe, what drove Husam Dawiyat to commit these crimes is a sick, evil ideology. It is the same ideology that leads women to distribute candy to children in celebration of terrorist attacks. It is the same ideology that spawns poems, songs and murals that praise the shahid (martyr) and describe a yearning to murder in the name of Allah. It is this very same unconscionable set of principals that has elevated death to the pinnacle of human achievement.

With such an ideology there can be no accommodations and no negotiations. A society for whom the protection of the stranger, the orphan and the widow are core values cannot coexist with a society whose chief values are the export of suffering and death. The answer to the Arab-Israeli conflict, or the wider struggle between militant Islam and the rest of the world is not to be found in the percentage of land relinquished or the number of prisoners released. This world war will only come to an end when Muslim societies around the world reform themselves, and reject the cult of death that has sprouted from within their faith.

A Deadly Cease-Fire

When Israel and Hamas agreed to a six-month cease-fire in Gaza, many Israelis wondered how long it would last. After all, Hamas didn't decide to embrace the Jewish State. Rather, the Hamas government reached the conclusion that it needed time to plan the next round of fighting without worrying about Israeli air strikes and ground incursions. The other reason that Israelis were skeptical about the cease-fire was that the last such agreement between Israel and Hamas saw Fatah and Islamic Jihad picking up the slack for their Islamist brothers. These two groups continued to launch rockets at Israeli communities in the Western Negev as Hamas took a break from terrorizing the children of the "Zionist occupiers."

That trend has continued into this cease-fire. Today, rockets again were launched towards the Negev as they have been since a mortar attack late Monday night signaled the first Palestinian challenge of the cease-fire. Two people were wounded in Sderot on Tuesday when multiple rockets struck the town. In addition to the rocket barrages, two armed terrorists were captured last night after they had crossed the security fence surrounding Gaza.

The Israeli response has been muted so far. The only action taken in response to the continued violations of the agreement has been to temporarily shut down activity at some of the Gaza crossings that allow the flow of goods into the Hamas controlled territory.

It is understandable as to why the Israeli government would use non-violent means as a way to ensure that the cease-fire is respected. The cabinet is set to vote on Sunday on a prisoner exchange with Hezbollah that would return Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, both presumed to be dead, to Israel. Not wanting to rock the boat ahead of a possible deal, the Olmert government has offered only a slap on the wrist retaliation.

As the continuation of rocket fire has shown, the government's decision simply isn't good enough. Terrorists from both Islamic Jihad and Fatah continue to launch mortars and rockets at Israeli communities, while the IDF sits on its hands. The Israeli response to these unprovoked attacks will set the price for violating the cease-fire. In light of the failure of the closure of the crossings to dissuade terrorists from continuing their murderous rocket campaign, or to motivate Hamas to force them to do so, the IDF must be ordered to take action. Islamic Jihad and Fatah need to see that they cannot violate the cease-fire with impunity.

It could also be suggested that the cabinet now realizes the folly of signing the agreement in the first place, and order a major offensive against the Hamas regime itself. That option however, seems not to be on the table. In lieu of a major military operation, minimally the IDF must be allowed to respond to the rockets, mortars and infiltrations, and be allowed to target terrorist leaders planning and carrying out such attacks. If that doesn't happen, Israelis are in for a lethal, one sided cease-fire.

Shaba's Global Impact

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice arrived in Israel Saturday night and dedicated much of her two day visit to condemning Israel for continuing to build homes in Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem. While it is more than a little offensive that the U.S. wants to prevent the building of Jewish homes in existing neighborhoods of the Jewish State's capital, Rice's problematic stance didn't end there. Following her two day trip to Israel, the Secretary paid a visit to Lebanon. There, she announced her desire to have Israel negotiate with Lebanon over the status of the area surrounding Mt. Dov, known as the Shaba Farms.

Mt. Dov and the Shaba Farms are part of the Golan Heights and were wrested from Syria, not Lebanon, in the Six-Day War. Regardless of the international community's opinion on whether Israel or Syria is the rightful owner of the Golan, it is clear that the Lebanon-Golan border is the international border between Lebanon and the state that controls the Golan.

In accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 425, Israel withdrew from Lebanon in May of 2000, following an 18-year presence there. The IDF withdrawal to the international border was confirmed by the UN in Security Council Resolution 1310 which states: "... the Secretary-General's conclusion that as of 16 June 2000 Israel had withdrawn its forces from Lebanon in accordance with resolution 425 (1978) and met the requirements defined in the Secretary-General's report of 22 May 2000." Israel's withdrawal was so complete that the border town of Ghajar, previously under complete Israeli sovereignty, was split in two between Israel and Lebanon to satisfy the cartographers who claimed that the border drawn by Sykes and Picot ran through the town.

Secretary Rice's motivation for bringing up Shaba is obvious. After having lost Lebanon to Hezbollah and their Syrian and Iranian sponsors, the United States is trying to prop up weakened Sunni leaders like Prime Minister Fuad Seniora and Sa'id Hariri. Any attempt, however, to force Israel out of the Shaba Farms will end up strengthening Hezbollah and weakening the Sunnis.

First of all, it wasn't for lack of political support that the Sunni's surrendered to Hezbollah. Hassan Nassrallah gained veto power in the Lebanese government through brute force not by holding political rallies and debates. Secondly, most Lebanese will recognize that it is out of fear of Hezbollah that the United States is pressuring Israel, thus strengthening the Shi'ite organization and strengthening the appeal of jihad ideology.

The havoc such a policy would wreak in Lebanon is minor compared to the global implications of pressuring Israel to surrender the Shaba Farms to Lebanese hands. An Israeli retreat under such circumstances would throw every single international border agreement into question. If Israel completely withdrew from Lebanon as the United Nations verified, how can Hezbollah now come and demand Israel to surrender more land? If terrorist organizations are awarded land on the other side of internationally recognized borders, what is the value of having an internationally recognized border? By disregarding UN Resolution 1310, the U.S. threatens to destabilize existing border conflicts the world over by providing incentive for a party's continued aggression, even after an agreement has been reached. Furthermore, it has the potential to provoke new conflicts as states and terrorist groups alike attempt to capitalize on the devaluation of borders that such a policy decision would cause.

The status of Mt. Dov and the Shaba Farms is an Israeli-Syrian issue. To pretend otherwise threatens not only the lives of Israelis and Lebanese by strengthening Hezbollah, it threatens the lives of citizens from Afghanistan to Colombia. It would be a shame if this is the legacy that Secretary Rice leaves behind when the Bush Administration comes to an end.

Negotiating in Blood

Wednesday, the Israeli cabinet announced its support for continued negotiations for a cease-fire with Hamas. This follows a steady escalation of rocket and mortar fire from Gaza that has taken a heavy tole on the Jewish communities of the Western Negev. Last week, a mortar struck a paint factory in Kibbutz Nir Oz killing Amnon Rozenberg and wounding four of his colleagues. Rozenberg was the third Israeli civilian to be murdered in about as many weeks as a result of Gazan mortar and rocket fire, and the 18th such casualty since the beginning of 2007.

A new Hebrew University poll shows that 68% of Israelis oppose the current cease-fire proposal. Despite this opposition, the cabinet chose to continue to move toward a truce and not to launch a major military offensive in Gaza. Yesterday, Hamas responded in turn by launching over 50 mortars and rockets at Israeli communities stretching from the Gaza security fence all the way to Ashkelon.

With Israel having publicly shelved the military option, Hamas felt free to try to improve its position at the negotiating table. Yesterday's barrage was an attempt by the Hamas government to force Israel into greater concessions and to portray Israel as having raised the white flag and sued for a cease-fire.

Even while government ministers talked about the possibility of launching an offensive in Gaza before the cabinet decided against it, the potential operation was always referred to as preceding a cease-fire. These statements, coupled with the cabinet's decision to pursue the cease-fire option all point to a major shift in the relationship between Israel and Hamas. The Israeli government no longer views Hamas as a terrorist enemy whose defeat is necessary for the security of Israel's citizens. Olmert's government seems to have accepted Hamas's control of Gaza and has decided to make room for the group on the list of legitimate regional actors.

If Hamas and the other terrorist organizations that enjoy its protection no longer need to fear defeat and destruction at the hands of the IDF, days like yesterday will prove to be the rule and not the exception. Negotiation with Israel serves as the ultimate consolidation of power for Hamas, and ensures that the radical Sunni group will be around for a while.

Hamas announced its plans for the future with yesterdays barrage. It is now up to Prime Minister Olmert to present Hamas and the residents of southern Israel with a different "vision" for the future.

Just a Piece of Paper

Perception is reality. That's what we are told when we read about candidates running for office. Pollsters, spinsters, spokespeople and other media oriented members of a candidates' campaign try to package them as one would a brand of soda. More important than whether a candidate has the leadership or judgement skills needed for serving in office, is the appearance that he or she possesses these skills. Substance is replaced by spin.

The same shallow and misguided way of thinking has been applied to Israel's relationship with the Palestinians for a decade-and-a-half. Since the days of Oslo, Israeli politicians and media outlets have repeatedly told the public that peace is just around the corner. In one or two years, a deal can be signed and over one hundred years of conflict ended. There has never been anything further from the truth.

We now know that Yasser Arafat was no man of peace, and never intended on ushering in the era of utopian tranquility promised at Oslo. It is high time that our political leaders begin to tell the truth about our Arab neighbors. The unfortunate fact is that peace is nowhere in sight.

Israelis are told that we have a genuine partner for peace in Fatah. This of course ignores the fact that its current leader Mahmoud Abbas, holds a doctorate in Holocaust denial from a Russian university. It does not take into account the fact that the group's most popular figure is Marwan Barghouti, the founder of the murderous Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades. This lie that the Left has tried to sell us seems to turn a blind eye to the incitement against Jews and the State of Israel that is a main fixture of Fatah-controlled PA TV, or the summer camps that Fatah has named for suicide bombers.

Peace accords do not create peace. Peace accords can legislate the relationship between two groups when the facts on the ground have led the two sides to be receptive to peace. Peace treaties are the effect, not the cause. For example, the signing of the agreement at Appomattox did not cause the South to surrender the Civil War. It was the fact that the South had been brought to its knees by the North that caused it to surrender, which in turn caused it to sign at Appomattox. The Confederacy signed because it had lost the will to fight. The agreement signed by General Lee merely formalized the facts on the ground.

Israel, since its birth has striven for peace with its Arab neighbors. Despite our overwhelming desire to live in peace and tranquility, we must remember that when we deal with the Palestinians and Syrians and any other state or actor, that the peace creates the treaty and not the other way around. The road to peace will not be paved by engaging in pointless negotiations with villainous, anti-semitic leaders, but rather by demanding that our neighbors lay the groundwork so that future generations might choose coexistence over war.

From Tehran to the Golan

Yesterday saw two significant announcements concerning Israel's two northern neighbors. The first involved the political crisis in Lebanon and the conference held in Qatar in an attempt to resolve it. At the conference, Hezbollah was able to translate its muscle-flexing exercise in the streets of Beirut and Tripoli into powerful political clout, and the organization has now guaranteed itself veto power in the Lebanese cabinet. The second dramatic announcement was made by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's office. In the announcement it was revealed that Israel and Syria have been conducting negotiations through Turkish intermediaries.

While the negotiations in Qatar and Turkey dealt with different issues, the two sets of meetings could not be more related. While the talks were held in Doha and Ankara respectively, they were both controlled from Tehran. The Iranians, along with their partners in Damascus, have set the advance of Jihad as the cornerstone of their foreign policy. The two governments do this by training, funding and arming groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and different terrorist groups operating in Iraq. As a full-fledged Iranian proxy army, Hezbollah has succeeded in overcoming the US and European backed government of Fuad Seniora, guaranteeing the continued rape of Lebanon by both Iran and Syria. More worrisome than the regression of Lebanon into a vassal state once again, is the defeat of the United States by the government of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The possibility of an Israeli retreat from the Golan Heights is dangerous as well. Firstly, the security threat posed by a Syria whose border with Israel would essentially run along the Kinneret (Sea of Galilee) is obvious enough. The second problem with such a move is that it would reinforce the notion amongst radical Muslims that Israel in not a permanent entity with whose existence they must reconcile. Since the early 1980's Israel has pulled out of Sinai, Southern Lebanon and Gaza. These all suggest to our enemies that Israel is not a permanent fact but rather an aberration, an anomaly on a path to destruction. Heightened talk of an Israeli retreat from the Golan and a possible exit from Judea and Samaria emboldens our enemies and serves as proof that their path leads to victory, inviting with it a greater likelihood for war and violence.

Not only do these two events threaten Lebanon and Israel respectively, they serve to undermine the security of the entire region. Iran has already secured for itself an impressive track record in fighting Israel and the West over the past few years. Their proxy army Hezbollah fought Israel to a stalemate in 2006, just a couple of months after Iranian-backed Hamas terrorists asserted their control over the Gaza Strip. Their remote-control takeover of Lebanon pads that record even more, and an Israeli retreat from the Golan would be another feather in Ahmadinejad's cap. The Sunni Arab states, particularly those in the Gulf, are being forced to choose between appeasing an increasingly aggressive and successful Iran, or siding with the United States and Israel at a time where the two are reeling from a string of defeats. The more Iran gains strength, the more difficult it will be for Arab states to side against it, depriving the United States of key allies in their attempt to deal with Tehran.

Hezbollah and Syria are dangerous actors in and of themselves. Each however, serves as the advance guard for Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollahs. In neither case can Israel and the West afford to retreat in the face of the ever advancing Iranians. Like the Soviets and Nazis before them, the Iranians represent a violent and expansionist ideology whose appetite cannot be sated, only defeated. For Israel to play a constructive role in the fight against Iran's ambitions of global jihad, it can start by defending its territorial integrity from the various Iranian agents threatening it. Only then, will the tide begin to turn the other way.

Dangerous Negotiating Partner

It has been reported this week that the governments of Israel and Syria have been engaged in secret negotiations, with hopes of signing an accord between the two countries. It is no secret that the Syrian demand in these negotiations is for an Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights region that was captured from Syria in the Six-Day War of 1967. The benefit that Israel hopes to derive from such a treaty would be the end of Syria's support for such terrorist organizations as Hezbollah and Hamas, as well as a cooling of that country's relationship with Iran.

There are a few misconceptions at work here. The first is that the Syrians can be held to their word. If for instance, Bashar Assad's government continues to provide material support for Hezbollah even after Syria retains sovereignty over the Golan, does anyone realistically believe that Israel will respond by sending tanks to retake the ceded territory? An agreement of this nature is not a contract that can merely be nullified if one party fails to carry out their commitments. Once again, Israel is being called upon to make concrete, irrevocable concessions, in exchange for promises.

The second misconception is that Bashar Assad will desist from his strong support for terrorism once an agreement is signed with Israel. Assad the younger, unlike his late father Hafez, does not strike fear into the hearts of all of his opponents at home. His father put down an uprising by the Muslim Brotherhood in 1982 by calling the army into the town of Hama. Amnesty International estimates that the deaths were between 10,000 and 25,000 in the army's attack. Lacking his father's strength, Bashar has a greater need to export terrorism around the region, to prevent those terrorist elements from attacking his regime. It is important to remember on this note that Syria is ruled by the minority Allawite sect not unlike the way that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was ruled by a minority Sunni regime.

Another reason to question the effect that an agreement with Israel would have on the terrorist infrastructure in Damascus is that not all of it is directed solely at Israel. Hezbollah for example, represents Syria's interests in Lebanon as much as it is a proxy army that wages war against the Jewish State. Likewise, Syria's support for terrorists crossing into Iraq has less to do with harming Israel, and significantly more to do with driving the United States out of the region.

The final of the problematic aspects of this negotiation is conceptual in nature. The basic foundation on which these negotiations are based is that the dispute between the State of Israel and Syria can be reconciled through the failed theory of Land for Peace. As we have seen often with the Palestinians, and most recently following the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, territory relinquished was used to launch assaults on Israeli civilians and soldiers. The successful peace treaty that Israel signed with Jordan on the other hand, was achieved without Israel ceding an inch of territory. The Jordanians accepted Israel's right to exist, something that the Palestinians have not done.

It is understandable that Israel should want to reach an agreement with its neighbor to the north. That said, if a deal is to be reached, it should address the source of the conflict between the two countries. The fact that Syria provided Hezbollah with the rockets it launched during the Second Lebanon War, and the fact that Hamas has its headquarters in Damascus speak to the fact that the Syrian conflict with Israel is more than territorial. While it has a territorial manifestation, Syria's conflict with the Jewish State has more to do with the political expediency of exporting terrorism and the denial of the Jewish People's right to establish their own state in the heart of the Arab world. Israeli negotiators would do well not to overlook these concerns, and to negotiate in a way that addresses the real reasons for Syrian aggression towards Israel.

Murderous Manipulation

Yesterday, four Arab terrorists attacked an Israeli fuel depot just outside of Gaza. The depot at Nahal Oz is the main terminal through which Israeli fuel is provided to Hamas controlled Gaza. It seems fairly illogical that terrorists would target the very lifeline supporting Gaza's families. While none of the four terrorists who managed to murder two Israeli civilians and wound two more were members of Hamas, Israel is placing blame for the attack squarely on the radical Islamic organization. While it has not been reported that Hamas had a direct hand in the raid, the group has allowed countless attacks by other terrorist organizations to emanate from the territory that it controls. It is also possible that Hamas provided behind the scenes assistance to the plotters. The question that has many scratching their heads is why Hamas, or any other terrorist organization, would risk an assault that could lead to an Israeli decision to cut humanitarian supplies to Gaza.

The first reason has to do with the seemingly parallel universe that is Palestinian society. When a culture of hate has deep roots in Palestinian education, terrorists have summer camps and songs named and written for them and successful attacks on Israelis are celebrated with the distribution of sweets, it's no wonder that the men of Fatah, Islamic Jihad and the Popular Resistance Committees would launch an attack against Jewish truck drivers in Nahal Oz. Popular Palestinian culture is inundated with music videos and murals glorifying the murder of Israelis, and the members of the various terrorist organizations are as much products of this culture and this set of values as ordinary Gazans.

The second reason is much more cynical. Many thought that when Hamas was elected to rule the Palestinian Authority, the pressures of providing for the needs of their constituents would force the group to compromise and abandon its hard line stance against Israel. On the contrary, Hamas has done everything in its power to resist compromise and has adhered to its previous stance with religious fervor. Two months ago, the group leveled the barrier separating the Gazan and Egyptian sections of the border town of Rafah. Hundreds of thousands of Gazans crossed into Egypt where they kicked off one of the largest shopping spree's in Rafah's history. This allowed the Hamas government to claim that it was providing for the needs of Gaza's citizens, while not bowing to Israeli pressure and continuing the "resistance" against the Zionists.

By allowing others to strike the fuel depot at Nahal Oz, and by launching their own attacks at other terminals through which Israel provides Gaza with food and medical supplies, Hamas is hoping to bait Israel into decreasing its humanitarian support of Gaza. Such a decision by the Israeli government would likely send the Hamas propaganda machine into full-gear, supplying the world media with pictures of candle lit protests and woman waiting for fuel rations. Hamas would be provided with a cassus belli for another attempt at breaching the border with Egypt, if they would be so inclined.

This brings us back to Palestinian culture. In a society that worships death and where willingness to be martyred is the highest virtue, it is no wonder that the government of Hamas is willing to sacrifice the wellbeing of more than a million Gazans for political gain.

Saving Fatah

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is once again in Israel, to direct the negotiations with the Palestinian Authority. After what has been reported to be heavy U.S. pressure, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak presented Rice and PA Prime Minister Salam Fayad with a long list of concessions that Israel is willing to make in order to strengthen the flagging Fatah movement. Some of these gestures include the removal of roadblocks in Judea and Samaria, permission for the PA to deploy 700 policemen in the Northern Samaria town of Jenin, the transfer to the PA of Russian-made armored vehicles and a plan to build a new Arab town near Ramallah. Despite the best American intentions, it is hard to see this latest series of Israeli concessions leading in the direction of the stability so desperately sought after by Washington.

Firstly, the Fayad-led government was never elected. Fayad was installed as Prime Minister only after PA President Mahmoud Abbas fired then Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, after his Hamas party militarily routed Fatah in Gaza. The firing of Haniyeh served the interests of Fatah, Israel and the United States, who were all looking for ways to reverse Hamas's sweeping election victory over Fatah. All of this means that Fayad's government does not have the mandate or support needed to affect real change and it does not represent the political aspirations of the Palestinians, who overwhelmingly have chosen the path of Hamas.

The second problem is one of implementation. Even if Salam Fayad had been elected, the paramilitary PA police force would still pose a headache for anyone looking for a reliable Palestinian security organization. Many acts of terror were carried out by PA policemen over the course of the intifada, and most recently they were involved in the murders of Ido Zoldan near Kedumim, and Sgt. David Rubin and Cpl. Achikam Amichai near Hebron.

The PA is also known for having a revolving door policy when it comes to arrested terrorists. One recent episode bears witness to this troublesome habit. In recent weeks it has been reported that the PA temporarily released two of the men who murdered Rubin and Amichai. The men were allowed to leave the prison in Hebron due to fears within the PA that Israeli forces would attempt to enter the prison and arrest the two terrorists.

But again, even if Fayad had been elected, and even if the PA police was a reliable security organization, they would still have to overcome the near unanimous support for terrorism being expressed by average Palestinians. In a poll conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, 84% of Palestinians supported the attack on Jerusalem's Mercaz HaRav yeshiva where a terrorist murdered 8 students with gunfire. The poll, whose margin of error was plus or minus three percent, recorded that 64% of those polled supported the launching of rockets from Gaza at Israeli towns. Not even the most highly supported government would clamp down on something so popular, let alone one that wasn't even elected. The survey also gave Hamas's Ismail Haniyeh a slight edge amongst the residents of Judea and Samaria in a potential presidential race against Fatah's Mahmoud Abbas. Support for Fatah in Judea and Samaria is traditionally higher than it is in Gaza.

It would seem that in light of the overwhelming grassroots support for terrorism amongst Palestinians, and the lack of a real mandate for Salam Fayad's government, these latest Israeli concessions seem at best to be a waste of time and resources. At worst though, the removal of roadblocks and the greater freedom being granted to the PA police could place the lives of Israeli citizens and soldiers at risk. One worries that even with all of Ehud Barak's gestures, Judea and Samaria are liable to go the way of Gaza, with a violent takeover by Hamas just a matter of time.