Zvi Bar'el

Just as we understood that the security zone in Lebanon was not an effective solution, we can expect similar enlightenment to occur with regard to the situation in the Gaza Strip. It's only a matter of time, and of a few hundred more destroyed homes.

"Yasser Arafat is behaving as if he were Marie Antoinette, despite not resembling her in any aspect. When the French Revolution began ..., she asked: `Why are they rebelling?' And she was told that they have no bread and are hungry. She replied: `Let them eat cake.' The Fatah rebels were torching the Palestinian Authority office in Khan Yunis when Arafat asked his famous question: `Crisis? What crisis?'"

The problem at the moment is not what the international court at The Hague said or didn't say, or whether the UN is pro-Arab or only anti-Israeli, or whether the separation fence is the pillar of Israel's security. The main point is the bluffs this government will use to continue to sell the fence at home.

A settler who wishes to leave the Gaza Strip immediately, but has no financial reserves, is stuck in the dunes of Gush Katif. He can't sell his home, because no one will buy it, and he can't get another mortgage or bridging loan until he receives the compensation, because he doesn't have enough collateral for the bank.

In Israel, as in the Arab states, not only is the state the leader, but public opinion is aroused only in two cases: Economic decrees or national insult.

The "historic moment" that was fomented last week makes Iraq a new country that is in need of intensive treatment. As things stand, however, there is no agreement between the United States and Europe, or between the U.S. and Russia, about how to treat this patient.

Turkey has razed hundreds of Kurdish villages, and cast hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of persons from their places of residence to other regions in the country. It imposed restrictions on Kurdish political activists, and conducted violent search operations within northern Iraq. As in Israel's case, all this was done in the name of the war on terror.

Compared to the start of the war, when there was a putatively clear and immediate danger to the Middle East and world peace, President Bush has been left with a fig leaf to cover his policies - the removal of dictatorship and the building of democracy in Iraq.

Policy makers who have decided that there will be no Jews in Gaza in another year-and-a-half, and who have designated for evacuation at least one area in the West Bank, can continue now to map out realistic final borders on the West Bank

Egyptian intelligence officials believe that the implementation of a disengagement plan in the Gaza Strip without an orderly transfer of power to an agreed-upon authority will create a political and security vacuum, and could result in the creation of a Palestinian mini-state in Gaza ruled by radical organizations such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

If there is anyone to whom the Iraqis owe their freedom, it is Ahmed Chalabi, who led the U.S. and Britain by the nose. Now, he will apparently pay a price - perhaps not, because after his spat with the Americans, he might be able to present himself as an authentic leader, and perhaps as a member of the new Iraqi government.

The defense minister's limited vocabulary, which relies on phrases such as the "terror infrastructure," "a tough war," "an operation conducted according to the rules," and "armed men," well suits the sort of fighting in which the IDF has become mired in Rafah: a war fought in the alleyways against violent gangs.

Apart from particular types of explosives or bombs used in the field, not a single aspect of the comparison fits. Up to 1989, Lebanon bore a certain resemblance to Gaza; but once the agreement that brought an end to the civil war in Lebanon was signed, and a regime was formed which united the country's factions, the analogy came to a full stop.

We have to think in terms of two Jewish states, one within the Green Line, living according to Israeli law, and the other across that line, relying on Jordanian law. The one is not entitled to depart from the laws of the state, the other can draw on whichever legal system it finds fit: Jordanian, Israeli or military regulations.

It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of the ideological controversy which, at the end of the day, will determine whether Israel will leave the settlements or continue to be bogged down in them.

There's no disputing that the disengagement and fence plans could have far-reaching ramifications for Jordan. Nor is there any dispute that Jordan will end up in the process as part of the solution, at least with regard to the economic hinterland for the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian state.

"How is it possible to return the territories? After all, there's no one to return them to," announced Golda Meir in 1969. As proof, she stated another historic fact three months later: "There's no such thing as Palestinians. They never existed." They are also non-existent today.

Israel believes it can administer the territories without a Palestinian leadership, whereas the United States did not even pause to consider such a question, as it has no desire to rule in place of the Iraqis. The entire leadership in Iraq will be acceptable, whereas in Israel the entire Palestinian leadership is considered unfit from the outset.

Israeli politicians would have difficulty mentioning even the names of the heads of the governments of Jordan and Egypt who are signatories to the peace treaty.

What has happened to the settlers' usual show - the demonstrations in the city centers, the kids giving out stickers at intersections?

Every foolish action recently, whether it be the killing of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin or any old bombing that kills dozens of Gaza residents, has been getting a distorted stamp of approval: We can't let the Palestinians get the impression that they're kicking the IDF out of Gaza.

After 25 years, the enigma that preoccupies Israel - "what's left of the peace with Egypt?" - can be shelved for good, and together with Egypt maybe the time has come to stop holding the annual memorial ceremonies for the peace.

In a situation in which Israel prefers not to coordinate the withdrawal from Gaza with the Palestinians or present a sustainable political plan, reliance on Egypt, both as a mediator and guardian of the border, is the best thing it can get.

The expanded Middle East seems more and more like a wide abaya attempting to cover up both the customer's and the tailor's flaws. As though Washington were saying, if we speak about democracy we won't have to stick our hands into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, if we lecture about civil rights we will not have to implement them in Gaza or Saudi Arabia.