However, sooner or later, it will dawn on them that their control of these territories is little more than a costly luxury, held only for religious or nationalistic sentiments. When the population of Israel does realize this, as they did in Lebanon, the war will end. Human nature allows no other choice; when luxuries become too expensive, people dump them. At the moment, Israel believes she can afford the expense, but the price is rising, and the Palestinians are not slashing costs. Things being as they are, the Israelis will eventually find the costs of holding the territories outstripping the rewards, and then they will leave. Theyll have no other choice.

Unwilling to face this reality, the Israeli government and her American fan club are trying to convince everyone otherwise. Like a spoiled housewife justifying her extravagant expenses, writers like Bill Kristol at the Weekly Standard and Marty Peretz of the New Republic wheedle on about how Israel needs the West Bank to survive. With a little imagination, you can almost hear them stamp their feet in frustration as their pleas progress from desperation to pathetic panic mongering. It now seems that every time the Palestinians so much as belch out of turn, Israels fans immediately queue up to conduct a mass, ournalistic séance where they summon forth the sprit of Adolph Hitler. In tones so ominous they border on comical, these writers and politicians shriek that Palestinian independence is only a stones throw away from a Middle Eastern version of Auschwitz.

This is, of course, fantasy, hysterical fantasy at that. A Palestinian state, even one including East Jerusalem, will not endanger Israels existence. It would be a Third World nation of three million people divided between a number of factions. Hardly a match for Israel, a modern country twice its size armed with nuclear missiles. In fact, not only would a Palestinian state not threaten Israel, it would make her more secure. The Israelis wouldn't be wasting troops garrisoning an occupation or dealing with the morale problems that come with that occupation, such as the recent spate of Israeli military desertions.

So why haven't the Israelis pulled out and spared themselves all this trouble? Because religion and sentiment still loom large. Israel, being a Jewish state, has a strong emotional tie to Jerusalem and other sites in biblical Judea and Samaria (now the West Bank). However, as only about 20 percent of Israel can be described as religious, this feeling is actually little more than a sentimental nostalgia for a biblical past, a past the largely secular population doesn't even consider historical. Eventually the Israelis will tire of paying such a high price for this intangible conceit.

Its hard to see this right now. The Israeli's initial defensive shock at the violence has panicked them into electing super-hawk Ariel Sharon Prime Minister. This, combined with the standoffish policy of the new Bush administration, makes the Palestinian position look worse than it has ever been, and with each Israeli shell fired, their situation seems to deteriorate further.

But this is an illusion. The Palestinian position is actually quite strong, and with time it grows even stronger. As in all guerilla wars, victory goes to the more committed. When Israeli shells kill a Palestinians compatriots, he becomes further convinced that his only option is to fight and rid himself of the Israelis, thus deepening his commitment to victory. However, it doesnt work that way for the other side. Every death the Israelis suffer forces them justify the fight in their minds because this fight really isn't about Israel herself. Eventually, the justifications will fail to rise to the occasion.

Israel can't escape this losing cycle. Even a hard-liner like Ariel Sharon won't expel the Palestinians en masse because that would permanently isolate his nation. Yet he cant pull out because his voting base wont allow him to relinquish the territories. Therefore, the only option he has is to tighten the screws on his adversaries, making the conflict even more un-winnable.

If one needs proof of this formula, then look to the Irish fight for independence in the early part of the last century; it parallels the Middle Eastern crisis closely. After the Easter Rising of 1916, the question of Irish independence seemed to have been answered with a very permanent no. However, thanks mainly to Winston Churchill's clumsiness and the brutality of his 'Black and Tan' forces, the Irish, who first opposed the Easter Rising, decisively turned against the United Kingdom. British abuses overcame Irish division, and the people of Eire were forced to choose between their own countryman's oppression or that of a foreigner, a choice the foreigner always loses. On the other side, the British realized that the luxury of retaining a piece of land that didn't affect them wasn't worth the expense. Once this shift in commitment occurred on both sides, Irish independence was inevitable, though messy.

To be sure, there are differences between Ireland and Palestine, but even those indicate Israel cannot win this fight in the long run. Like Great Britain's use of the Black and Tan Forces in Ireland, Israel's forcible efforts to hold the West Bank and Gaza are only able, at best, to delay the inevitable. They are little more than band-aids forestalling the inevitable blow that Israel's pride will suffer when her citizens realize this unnecessary occupation is no more than a foolish luxury, one that has cost them too many of their sons already.

Derek Copold

Page reads: 1879