This week, US Senator Arlen Specter submitted a troubling request to the US Justice Department. Specter asked that the US attorney-general request that Israel extradite convicted Hamas terrorist Hassan Salameh to stand trial in the US for the murder of three US citizens.

Salameh was one of the commanders of Hamas at the time of his arrest in 1996. He was sentenced to some 50 consecutive life terms in prison for his direct involvement in the murder by suicide bombings and shooting attacks of scores of Israelis from 1994-1996.

Given the steep sentence, why would Specter seek his extradition?

Perhaps Specter is disturbed by what has become the state of the Israeli criminal justice system since 1993. For instance, Specter may be aware of the story of Nasser Abu H'meid.

Abu H'meid is one of Fatah chief Marwan Barghouti's deputies. He was sentenced to seven consecutive life sentences plus 50 years in prison last December. Abu H'meid was charged and found guilty of seven counts of murder and more than 100 charges of attempted murder.

The thing about Abu H'meid is that in the early 1990s he was convicted of nine counts of terrorist murder and sentenced to nine consecutive life sentences, only to be released a few years later as a confidence-building measure for the PLO.

Then again, maybe Specter is aware that PLO bomber Ahmed Jbarra served but 27 years of his life sentence for the murder of 14 Israelis in the 1976. Because of his early release, Jbarra sat in prison for less than two years for every Jew he killed. Jbarra signed a form upon his release last month stating that he would not engage in hostile activities against Israel. And yet, the day he left prison he embraced PA chief and enemy of Israel Yasser Arafat, and days later accepted the position of Arafat's advisor.

Then too, maybe it isn't the justified fear that Salameh may one day go free to murder again that motivated the senator to act. Maybe he doubts that being in an Israeli prison is sufficient to neutralize the threat emanating from hardened murderers like Salameh. After all, behind the entire story of Hamas's theatrical decision to take a short break from its genocidal program against the Jewish state stands Marwan Barghouti.

Barghouti, who is currently standing trial for the murder of scores of Israelis, has orchestrated the negotiations with Hamas that are taking place simultaneously in three countries and the territories.
He sent emissaries to Lebanon to meet with Hizbullah commanders to pressure them to work out a deal for a prisoner swap together with Hamas and Islamic Jihad. The deal would include his release from prison. Barghouti's emissaries, acting at his direction, have spoken with Egyptian intelligence officials as well as Hamas leader Khaled Mashal in Syria and Egypt. The fact that Barghouti is capable of arranging and coordinating this international operation from behind bars makes a mockery of the criminal justice system in the country.

Of course, the source of the problem does not lie with the prisons or the courts. After sentencing Abu H'meid, the Jerusalem District Court justices made this point clear in publishing the following statement: "It should be pointed out that we are talking about someone who was previously sentenced to life terms and it seems that those punishments were not enough to deter him, and only by keeping him behind bars will he be prevented from carrying out criminal acts in the future."

The point was directed not at the parole board but at the government. It was the government that decided to allow Abu H'meid and thousands of other terrorists to go free over the past decade. And it is the government that, to no small extent, bears responsibility for allowing them to murder again.

Today we see that the hope engendered by the 1993 Oslo Accords and by President George W. Bush's speech last year demanding Palestinian reform proved to be baseless. Mahmoud Abbas is a terrorist, and so is his security chief, Muhammad Dahlan. Neither man has any intention of either ending terrorism or enacting reforms that would allow for political participation by Palestinians who oppose the PLO's aim to destroy Israel.

On Thursday morning, Dahlan's "security" chief in Gaza, Rashid Abu Shabak, announced that his forces are willing to take security responsibility in Gaza. But Shabak himself is wanted for murder by Israel.

In an Israel governed by the rule of law, not only would the government not be negotiating with Dahlan, Abbas, and their ilk, it would be trying them for murder and sending them to prison.

Amazingly, what we find is that far from bringing democracy and peace to Palestinian society, every move by Israel to placate the Palestinian leadership has involved the undermining of Israel as a state of laws.

The erosion of the criminal justice system's credibility in exercising its lawful power to prosecute mass murderers is only one aspect of the breakdown of Israel's legal system following its attempts to cut a deal with the PLO. Another glaring example is found in law enforcement.

On Thursday morning, the IDF began evacuating a home for troubled youth and three mobile homes belonging to their instructors at the settlement of Adei Ad.

Adei Ad, adjacent to Shilo and Shvut Rahel, is an agricultural community established five years ago. It is home to some 14 families and an agricultural yeshiva. The community is well established and sits on government-owned land. The four structures that the IDF intended to destroy have been standing for close to three years and were built with government approval. The occupants received no prior warning of the IDF's intent to expel them but were, according to Segula Melet, a resident of the community, "taken by complete surprise when the army trucks appeared this morning with the troops and the bulldozers."

In an attempt to thwart the decision to illegally expel the residents, the Council of the Jewish Communities in Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza Strip petitioned the Supreme Court. The court ordered the government to defend the IDF's move.

"Let's see what Ariel Sharon comes up with," Melet told me. "It will be interesting to see how the prime minister justifies this illegal act."

This seemingly egregious denial of due process to the residents of Adei Ad is all the more startling when contrasted with the government's refusal to contend with the rampant and systematic illegal building carried out by Beduin in the Negev. Just 10 minutes outside of Beersheba it is nearly impossible to walk 10 meters without running into another illegally constructed structure on state-owned land by Israeli Beduin.

Commenting on this state of affairs, Prof. Eliav Shochetman from the Hebrew University Law School says, "The first rule of a properly functioning state is equality before the law. The point when political considerations are allowed to influence the fairness of the law enforcement and judicial systems is the point where the law enforcement and the judicial systems begin to unravel."

On Wednesday, President Bush reiterated his firm stance that Hamas must be dismantled and not permitted simply to stand down for a short period as Abbas wishes. And yet, while a reasonable demand (given that the road map explicitly stipulates that the PA must dismantle terrorist organizations), the manner in which the president stated the case shows the moral infirmity of the entire attempt to have a peace process with terrorists.

Bush said, "Progress toward [peace]... will only be possible if all sides do all in their power to defeat the determined enemies of peace, such as Hamas and other terrorist groups."

But Hamas is not simply an enemy of "peace." Hamas is an enemy of Israel. The obfuscation of the fact that Palestinian terrorists are enemies of Israel and must be defeated by Israel is the reason that the justice system is rendered impotent in carrying out its duties.

In a normal country, there could be no question that those wishing to massacre its citizens and undermine its laws and national identity are enemies of the state. But in Israel, every time a move is made to cut a deal with the PLO, the national identity is trampled under the peace process steamroller.

Victims of war crimes are referred to as "victims of peace." Enemies of Israel are defined as "enemies of peace." Citizens are denied due process in the "interest of peace." This being the case, victims of terrorism cannot be assured of legal redress. Their murderers are granted immunity from prosecution. Why? Because of what Secretary of State Colin Powell refers to as the murderers' "high profile" in the peace process.

Advocates of the peace process often argue that there can be no justice without peace. But given Israel's experience over the past decade, it seems truer to say that peace must be predicated first and foremost on justice. Until Israel is able to mete out justice fairly and without prejudice under its laws, its enemies will continue to work towards its destruction with impunity. And no peace will be achieved.

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.

Hamas's latest offer is to temporarily stop massive attacks inside pre-Six Day War Israel, while continuing with smaller attacks. Massive attacks by Hamas, it says, will be limited during this undefined period to Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. The offer is contingent on Israel agreeing to stop all targeted killings of Hamas members and releasing all terrorists from jail.

Israel's latest offer is to stop targeted killings of Hamas leaders and commanders if Hamas agrees to stop all terrorist attacks everywhere. In addition, Israel will continue expelling Israelis from their homes in unauthorized communities in Judea and Samaria.

The Palestinian Authority's latest offer is to form a unity government with Hamas if its leaders agree to announce they accept a temporary cease-fire (hopefully) ahead of PA Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas's meeting with US Secretary of State Colin Powell today. The offer does not seem to be limited in time. That is, even if Hamas does not oblige Abbas ahead of his meeting with Powell, its representatives will still be allowed to join his government.

For his part, Powell is poised to demand that Israel make a new offer that includes releasing terrorists from jail and ending targeted killings of all Hamas terrorists except for "ticking bombs" narrowly defined. The US will expand its demand that Israel increase the pace and breadth of expulsions of Israelis from unauthorized communities and stop building the wall that is supposed to keep Palestinian terrorists from infiltrating into pre-Six Day War Israel.

At this juncture, the demand that Hamas be dismantled as a fighting force is not on the table.

What does all of this talk bode for Hamas? We have a model in Hizbullah. Following the failed Operation Grapes of Wrath in Lebanon in 1996, Israel agreed to stop fighting Hizbullah in populated areas. That is, it allowed Hizbullah freedom to operate on its own favored territory.

Ending IAF air strikes against Hizbullah targets in populated areas effectively neutralized Israel's military advantage against the terrorist force.

Likewise, Israel's willingness to forgo the option of targeted killings of Hamas terrorists means that Israel is conceding its most powerful weapon against Hamas. As one Palestinian source puts it, "Why do you think this is their first demand? Because it is the Israeli weapon they most fear. Take away the targeted assassinations, you lose all deterrence against them."

The upshot is that Hamas will be allowed to retain its finances, arms, leadership, foot soldiers, and access to public opinion. Hamas is now being legitimized by all parties.

Of course, Hamas's second demand -- to end demolition of the homes of terrorists -- is already on the road map. No doubt this tool, which has worked to deter hundreds if not thousands of Palestinians from becoming suicide bombers, will soon be loudly condemned by the members of the Quartet, and Israel will agree, in a later stage of negotiations -- perhaps after this cease-fire fails? -- to end the practice.

What is the significance of all these rounds of negotiations with Hamas for the PA? What they expose is that the PA has not made a decision to fight terrorism. Abbas has made this repeatedly clear. His security chief Muhammad Dahlan's demand this week that known murderers Tawfik Tirawi and Rashid Abu Shabak be appointed to head his forces in Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza Strip is simply further proof that the PA security forces will continue to be terrorist forces.

In offering Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Fatah seats at his cabinet table, Abbas is merely solidifying the already existing unity of forces. This unity has existed overtly since Yasser Arafat and Marwan Barghouti formed the "Unified Resistance of the Intifada" in the fall of 2001 to coordinate terrorist attacks among Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and PLO member organizations like the DFLP and the PFLP.

As for the US, the Bush administration seems intent on repeating the policy that scored its predecessor so badly. Powell made this point clear on Wednesday, when he was quoted as saying, "I am encouraged that both sides seem to realize that they cannot allow this immediate wave of terrorism to stand in the way of progress down the road map. There is no alternative."

The main problem of all the discussions with Hamas is what they say about the Israeli government generally and about the leadership of Ariel Sharon specifically. Just one week ago, Sharon declared that he would wage an all-out war against Hamas, now he is bargaining with it. Was the attempted hit on Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi simply a negotiating tactic? Was Sharon simply putting the notion of targeting Hamas leaders on the table in order for him to concede it? Possibly.

At the very least, it appears that Sharon, who was elected overwhelmingly in 2001 to end his predecessor Ehud Barak's ruinous diplomatic policies, has now adopted them as his own.

And it is impossible to blame Sharon's actions on US pressure. In stepping back from his earlier criticism of the Rantisi hit, US President George W. Bush at least showed last week that he will not advance his Middle East policy at the cost of an overt confrontation with Israel.

As for Sharon, he is beginning to look more and more like Shimon Peres. Until Peres's ascent to national leadership in the 1980s and 1990s, he was one of the most compelling strategic thinkers in Israel. His visions were at once vast, ideologically sound, and pragmatic. But at a certain point it seems that Peres abandoned all his previous convictions in order to enjoy personal popularity among Israel's social elites and European intellectuals. Like Peres, Sharon seems to have abandoned strategic (and moral) clarity for vapid slogans.

Aside from negotiating with Hamas after declaring war on it, the other glaring example of this intellectual shallowness is Sharon's defense of dismantling the outposts. Just last year, Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Moshe Ya'alon said: "Every evacuation [of settlements] under terrorism and violence will strengthen the terror and violence. It will endanger us."

And yet, as civilians are massacred on buses and little girls are shot dead on highways, Sharon is dismantling them. He is doing so to prove what is already as clear as the roundness of the earth -- that Israel is willing to make compromises for peace. Americans do not need further proof of this fact.

The final question is what our habit of repeating past mistakes says about the way decisions are made in this country. What it says is that today there is no open debate about the future we want for ourselves.

Take the example of the murder of Noam Leibowitz on Tuesday night. In crawling under the eight-meter high wall of separation between Route 6 and Kalkilya, the terrorists put paid to the quaint notion that a new Maginot line can work for us. Yet rather than allow this simple truth to come out, Israeli newspapers and broadcast media invited only the wall's chief proponents to explain why it still works.

For its part, the IDF was quick to say that it will be building 21 military camps and dozens of static outposts along the wall to guard it. So in order to guard a worthless wall, the IDF will be building static defenses that will themselves become attractive targets for terrorists.

As for the larger strategic blunder of regurgitating Oslo, we are told by our media elites that there is no alternative. No other plan exists, they say. Tel Aviv University held a three-day conference this week in which the participants at the failed Camp David summit sat and discussed why their operation was a success, even if the patient died. There has been no discussion whatsoever of Tourism Minister Benny Elon's plan to end the war. His plan, which involves the dissolution of the PA and the resettlement of Palestinian refugees in Jordan is completely unknown to Israelis, even as Elon himself has twice traveled to the US to explain his alternative to American audiences.

Perhaps his ideas have merit. Perhaps some do and others do not. How can we know?

That Hamas is a terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction of the State of Israel through genocide is known by all. So why is no one pointing out how dangerous it is to be negotiating with these murderers?

The time has come for the citizens of this country to demand that our leaders contend with reality. We need to be able to tell ourselves that there is something pathological about a people that insists on repeating its mistakes. We must demand and embrace discussion of alternatives to failed strategies. Our political leaders, academic and media elites must be put on notice that we insist that alternative voices be heard, because what stands in the balance is not about them. It is about our survival.

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post

With brotherly love and deepest respect, Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas Sunday embraced Ahmed Jbarra during his morning press conference in Ramallah.

In the shadow of a dawn attack conducted jointly by Fatah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad that left four IDF soldiers dead and four wounded, Abbas lauded Jbarra who on July 4, 1975, placed a refrigerator full of mortar bombs in Jerusalem's Kikar Zion.

The bomb killed 14 Israelis.

So far, securing Jbarra's release from prison and that of another 91 terrorists is Abbas's proudest accomplishment as prime minister, and his embrace was pregnant with symbolism. Like Yasser Arafat's eulogy for Hamas bomb-maker Yahya Ayash after Ayash was killed by Israeli security services in February 1996, Abbas's gesture was made to show that that the PA's reformist prime minister is a loyal soldier in the Palestinian terrorist war against Israel. The message couldn't have been clearer. Terrorism is legitimate. Terrorists are heroes of the revolution.

And if the photo-op was insufficient, Abbas went to great lengths to explain its meaning. He told reporters that his most urgent goal as prime minister is to secure the release of all Palestinian terrorists currently held in Israeli jails. "The release of detainees is our top priority," he said.

Beyond springing murderers from jail, Abbas proclaimed that his other goal is to have a dialogue "with all factions." The goal of the talks he said is "to achieve calm, not civil war."

Arafat's posthumous embrace of Ayash unleashed eight days of unrelenting terrorism against Israel that killed 60 and wounded more than 150 people. Abbas's embrace of Jbarra, of course, came in the midst of an all-out terrorist offensive by all groups, including his own Fatah.

For his part, Abbas's security chief Muhammad Dahlan has for the past two months been engaged in implementing Abbas's plan for embracing the sons of the revolution. His plan for reforming the Palestinian militias involves paying terrorists to join his new "reformed" security force. As this paper reported, two months ago Dahlan began making monthly payments of $200 to members of Fatah terrorist cells in the West Bank.

Now, with US backing, Dahlan has upped his ante. He has offered each terrorist $6,000 for his rifle and an additional $6,000 signing bonus for joining the new CIA-trained force. Among those who have been offered the payoffs are members of the Fatah Aksa Martyrs Brigades cell who on October 25, 2002, executed Haifa Sultan, a 39-year-old mother of seven from Nablus and shot her younger sister, Adibeh, in the legs. The victims' crime was "helping the Zionist enemy." So that's it: Dahlan's big plan to fight terrorism involves drafting the terrorists whom Abbas embraces into his US-financed and trained army.

As for the US, if there were any room for doubt as to the Bush administration's plans for resolving the Palestinian conflict with Israel, it vanished this week. Together with Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, President George W. Bush made it clear that the administration has staked its reputation on the dynamic duo of Abbas and Dahlan. In other words, the Bush administration's Middle East policy now is predicated on the singular demand that Israel surrender to the Palestinian terrorist war.

How is this manifested? Let us run through this week's events. After Sunday's attacks in Hebron and Gaza, Powell and Rice said in television interviews that the killings were directed against the peace process and not against Israel. On Tuesday, Bush himself attacked Israel harshly for attempting to kill Hamas chieftain Abdel Aziz Rantisi. The president justified his unprecedented support for a Hamas terrorist by claiming that Israel's action weakened Abbas. In Bush's words, "I'm concerned that the attacks will make it more difficult for the Palestinian leadership to fight off terrorist attacks." That is, counterterrorist measures by Israel weaken Abbas, who has repeatedly made clear that he has no intention of fighting terrorism.

Then too, following Wednesday's massacre of 17 in Jerusalem, Bush reacted by again reiterating that the attack was against peace. Or, more succinctly, the wanton murder of innocent Israelis had nothing to do with them or the fact that their murderers want to destroy Israel.

Later in the day, Powell explained that the lesson we must take from the rampant massacre of Israeli civilians is that "now is the time for us to remain steadfast" in pursuing the road map.

As well, The New York Times reported earlier in the week that the administration supports Abbas's demand that Israel release terrorists from prison and is pressuring the government to do so in order to strengthen Abbas.

Taken together, the meaning of all these US protestations and demands could not be clearer.

Abbas is their man. Like Arafat during the Oslo days, everything must be done to strengthen him. Counterterrorist operations by Israel weaken him and therefore must not be carried out. Failure to submit to his demand to release terrorists weakens him so Israel must release murderers so that they may kill again. Jewish construction in the territories weakens him so Jews must be prohibited from building. The presence of settlements in the territories weakens him and therefore they must be dismantled. The demand that he fight terrorism weakens him and therefore he must be allowed to co-opt, rather than combat, terrorists. In short, Israel must surrender to terrorism so that Abbas's position may be strengthened.

The implications of this new Bush administration policy for Israel are also plain. In the first instance, it shows that Sharon made an egregious strategic error in accepting the road map. Far from weakening the new post-Iraq war hostility of the Bush administration, accepting the road map merely opened the wellspring of further demands and attacks.

Speaking hours after the bus massacre, Sharon sounded as confused as his predecessor Yitzhak Rabin, who after bringing Arafat into the territories was suddenly beset with the most murderous campaign of terrorism Israel had experienced since the 1950s. Reacting to that terrorism, Rabin coined the hollow phrase, "We will fight terrorism as if there is no peace process and we will fight for peace as if there is no terrorism."

Echoing this message, Wednesday night Sharon said that Israel "is deeply committed to making every attempt to advance in the diplomatic process that will bring, we hope, quiet and peace." To this he added, "We will take all steps to safeguard the security of the citizens of the State of Israel."

But in light of the 25 Israelis murdered since last week's summit at Aqaba, and given the fact that both the Palestinians and the US have made clear that fighting terrorism runs contrary to a peace process, Sharon is faced with an unenviable decision. He can either combat terrorism to safeguard our lives and the future of our country or he can enjoy positive relations with the White House. As it is presently formulated, the Bush administration's Middle East policy leaves no room for maneuver.

Since Israel stands to gain nothing from an overt confrontation with the White House, Sharon must steer away from angry declarations and concentrate on the work at hand of destroying Israel's enemies in the PA. In this vein, we would do well to recall Israel's actions in Operation Defensive Shield. Then too, the Bush administration began demanding that Israel end its counterterrorist operations almost immediately after they began. Israel ignored these calls and set up a 24-hour-a-day information campaign to explain why the IDF's operations were necessary and justified. Like dogs barking at passing cars, the administration's protests were ignored.

It is true that last year Bush had not staked his reputation on a new peace process as he has now done. This makes the task before the government of saying no to the administration harder today.
Yet the alternative is unacceptable.

It must be noted that Sharon's umbrage at Bush's criticism of the air force's strike against Rantisi has met with wide approval by the US Congress. As well, Jewish and Christian groups have loudly criticized Bush for his anti-Israel statements this week. Then too, poll after poll of American public opinion has shown that the American people are supportive of our efforts to defeat our terrorist enemies.

In light of this, Sharon should feel a modicum of self-assurance when he bucks the US president. At the same time, even if this critical support for Israel's counterterrorist war did not exist, Sharon would still have to choose destroying terrorism to appeasing the White House. Our enemies from Rantisi and Arafat to the last of their terrorist foot soldiers have explained through word and deed, time and again, that their vision of a peaceful region involves the destruction of Israel. Until we deprive them of all vestiges of power, engaging in discussions of peace means participating in our own destruction.

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.

The gravel-paved road to the outpost is lined with olive trees and vineyards.

"Some of the trees and vines are saplings planted over the past couple years. Some, as you can see, are older," says 30-year-old Shibi Drori, an agronomist now working towards his doctorate in molecular biology at the Hebrew University, as he leads me up the hill.

The tree-lined path up the hill off Route 60 just across from the road to Shiloh and Shvut Rahel, leads to the outpost of Givat Harel.

Entering into the hilltop community of 12 families, I am immediately struck by its ordered tranquility. Each spruced up mobile home is lined with lawns and children's toys and swing-sets overlooking the breathtaking view of the surrounding hills of Binyamin.

Shibi, his wife Shira, and their children were among the four original families who moved to Givat Harel five years ago from their home in Shiloh. Sitting in the airy, immaculate living room of their home (which Shira, an architect, designed), Shibi explains the difference between outposts and traditional settlements.

"In our view, a town shouldn't simply be a bedroom community - a place people live in but work outside of. For us, working the land is key. I have 30 dunams of olive trees and five dunams of vineyards. Most of the families here are involved in agriculture in one form or another."

So far, the Droris are the only family to have traded in their mobile home for a regular one. "Two other families are beginning construction. The others are saving their money and plan to build when they can make the payments," Shira says.

At the end of the visit Shibi shows me his young vineyard. "These vines are only a year old," he says as he affectionately fingers the young chardonnay grapes. "You can't use such young grapes. You need to wait for three years before the vines are mature enough to yield wine producing grapes."

While Shibi will have the option of selling his grapes to the Barkan winery in Gush Etzion, he intends to go it alone. "I hope to buy some wine presses and have a boutique winery of my own when the grapes are ready," he says.

Over the Shiloh valley past Shvut Rahel, I pass into Adei Ad outpost. The olive groves, that belong to the 16 families who moved here since 1999, dot the hillsides. Goats wander between the mobile homes chewing weeds and wildflowers as they go.

Sitting in his crowded office - a small room in an antiquated mobile home decorated with pictures of spanking clean mobile homes and bulldozers torn from last year's calendar - Rabbi Boaz Melet, a toothy 35-year-old, sporting a disheveled beard and a wide crocheted kippa speaks of his passion.

"Our yeshiva here is one of the only yeshivas that combines agriculture with Torah study. We believe, like Maimonides, that it isn't enough for someone to devote himself to Torah study and not to work. And for us, the best and most appropriate work for believing Jews is agriculture, because it is the one profession where you never lose sight of your subservience to God."

I went to the outposts on Tuesday morning to get a sense of the type of communities that the Quartet's road map dictates must be destroyed. But upon returning to Jerusalem, it occurred to me that what these communities are like is beside the point.

What does it matter whether the outposts, which, all told, are home to no more than 200 families, are pretty or dingy? What does it matter if they're populated by ideologues or pragmatists or dreamers? What does it matter if their residents live in mobile homes or spacious villas? What does it even matter if they were built in accordance with zoning laws or in breach of them? (Both Givat Harel and Adei Ad are in fact fully authorized communities.)

Because the fact of the matter is that settlements are not an "obstacle to peace." If the Palestinians are committed to peaceful coexistence with Israel, why should they demand that their nascent state be Judenrein? Why should it matter to the Palestinians if overlooking their villages is a man named Shibi Drori who patiently tends to his vineyard or a man named Rabbi Melet who teaches religious Jews to farm and raises goats?

On Tuesday, The International Herald Tribune provided the answer to this question. It did so by publishing the results of a Pew Global Attitudes Project opinion poll taken last month of 15,000 citizens of eight Arab and Muslim countries Kuwait, Jordan, Turkey, Pakistan, Indonesia, Lebanon, Nigeria and Morocco and the Palestinian Authority. These results show what the real obstacle to peace is.

Eighty percent of Palestinians agreed with the statement: "The rights and needs of the Palestinian people cannot be taken care of as long as the State of Israel exists." Ninety percent of Moroccans, 85% of Jordanians and 72% of Kuwaitis also agreed with the statement, as did solid majorities in Lebanon, Pakistan and Indonesia.

As well, the three most trusted world leaders for these Arab and Muslim societies are Osama bin Laden, Yasser Arafat and Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah. Finally, 80% of Jordanians and 90% of Palestinians expressed deep hatred not simply for US policy but for Americans as people. At the same time, 99% of Jordanians and 98% of Palestinians claim to have an unfavorable view of the US as do a majority of those questioned in the other countries polled.

Former US secretary of state Madeleine Albright chaired the poll. Albright called the results, "very disheartening, and very dangerous, frankly."

Indeed. How can peace possibly be achieved between Israel and its neighbors when our neighbors believe that justice will be served only by destroying Israel? How can the US hope to broker a deal when the Arab and Muslim world hates the US and the American people?

Also on Tuesday, US President George W. Bush attended a summit of regional leaders to which Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was not invited. Israel was banned from this US-sponsored forum in Sharm e-Sheikh because the other guests, particularly the popular potentate of Saudi Arabia, refused to sit in the same room as Sharon.

After tolerating this Arab discrimination of their Jewish neighbor, US officials saw their efforts to get their Arab friends to agree to normalize relations with Israel meet with abject failure. Then, too, Bush and his aides stood by as their host, Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak, refused their request to reinstate his ambassador to Israel.

And yet, apparently unmoved by Arab intransigence, at the end of the meeting Bush announced his determination to see Israelis expelled from their homes to remove obstacles to peace. At Aqaba on Wednesday, Bush reiterated, "the issue of settlements must be addressed for peace to be achieved."

In the wake of Wednesday's glittering summit at Aqaba, the world is abuzz with notions of peace after PA Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas stood before the cameras and repeated some of the pledges made by Yasser Arafat to prime minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1993. Although unlike Arafat, Abbas refused to say he would dismantle terrorist organizations or collect illegal weapons, his promise to join the international war on terrorism and end anti-Semitic Palestinian incitement sufficed to impress all concerned.

In exchange for Arafat's promises in 1993 - regurgitated in 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998, Israel gave Arafat land, allowed him to import his legions from the Palestine Liberation Army, and set up a terrorist enclave in the heart of Israel armed by Israel and trained by the CIA. Arafat pocketed Israel's concessions and went to war.

Today, Abbas, who offered less, is rewarded by Sharon's commitment to Palestinian statehood and his promise to immediately begin expelling Jews from outpost communities.

There is no doubt that President Bush means well in his efforts. His genuine hope for peace in the Middle East literally dripped from every word he uttered on Wednesday. And yet, like all his predecessors, he is doomed to fail in his mission because, like them, he is basing his policy on a lie.

That lie - that Israel has done something to warrant Arab rejectionism and aggression is necessary if one wishes to continue to truck with Arab autocracies whose subjects continue to ascribe to virulent hatred of everything the US stands for including its friendship with the Jewish state.

For the sake of the peace process, it is much easier to find a Jewish scapegoat on which to pin the blame for Arab and Muslim rejection of Israel. And so the settlements in the long term and the outposts in the immediate term are singled out. It is far easier to demonize agronomists and rabbis than deal with the single-minded hatred of the Arab world.

And so, in the aftermath of Aqaba, we again catch a whiff of the sweet ambrosia of duplicitous peace processes. The road map is a lie, of course. Outposts are its red herring. But no matter. Men like Shibi Drori and Boaz Melet will soon regale us with their televised protests at being evacuated from their homes. The press will portray them as crazies, alienated from right-thinking Israelis.

Arab leaders will say that these expulsions are insufficient and they cannot possibly move forward on fighting terrorism or recognizing Israel given Israel's intransigence. The US will continue to update its terror alerts daily, Israelis will continue to be butchered.

But the peace process will go on.
 
Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.