David Ignatius writes that President Bush's backing of Ariel Sharon's Gaza pullout, coupled with his statements against the "Right of Return" and in support of Israel's potential keeping of parts of the West Bank actually works against Israel's own interests. Let's take a look.

A Handshake That Doesn't Help Israel (washingtonpost.com)

We'll be the judge of that.

That's true. Further, we understand that the return of the refugees into the pre-1948 borders was never going to happen in any number. We also understand that the idea that they were was being used as nothing more than an automatic veto on any negotiation by simply demanding the return at any point in the process - something that Israel can never be expected to agree to. That particular fantasy has also been used as an excuse to keep millions of people in permanent refugee status in countries around the region, decades after they should have been integrated into their societies and granted new citizenship.

So, we have a double positive. Future negotiations will have realistic bargaining positions on the table from the start, and there is a strong signal sent that refugees now in their third and fourth generation will need to find, or have found for them, a new solution. Returning to destroy Israel through demographics is a pipe dream that will never come true.

One final plus: The Palestinians now pay the price for refusing the offer at Taba and launching a terrorist war. That offer is now off the table and is the bare starting point for future negotiations - a signal that there will be no reward for terror.

Six previous American administrations have failed utterly to move forward in any way on the issue of Israeli/Arab peace. Palestinians are more miserable than ever. Arafat has actually been talking about bringing Hamas into the government.

Sounds like it's time to try a new tack.

I also have some bad news for those who think the USA needs to be a neutral arbiter to have credibility. The first is that we're still the mediator, like it or not. No one else has any credibility whatsoever, nor any power to push parties to perform. Second is that we never have been viewed as a neutral party. The Palestinians have been screaming about the United States and burning our flag for quite some time now (They danced in the streets on 9/11. Never...ever...forget that.). They have chosen us as their enemy. Get used to it. Pretending to some false neutrality has not had any effect on that for some time now. Third and finally, the United States should never be neutral with regard to issues of right and wrong - particularly with regarding parties who are right and parties who have been wronged. Where the sides do not have equal merit, we should not give equal weight, especially when an ally is involved.

Nuance has accomplished exactly two things over the past several decades in the Middle East: jack and shit. It's time in this negotiation's life for everyone to put their cards on the table and let's see where we stand without being blind to the realities. You don't come to a negotiating table with dishonesty. Dishonesty is pretending the Right of Return is open for negotiation when it's not. Dishonesty is pretending you'll evacuate the entire West Bank when you have no intention of doing so (and let's remember that it is still on the table that Israel may actually cede some of its own territory to a future state). Why? Because when your opponent actually asks for those things and you make it clear they're not really for negotiation, you've been exposed as a fraud, a dishonest dealer and a time-waster. Better to be up front and realistic about what you're willing to put on the table. To do otherwise is to risk making things worse, and making a mockery of the process.

This is a bad example for Ignatius. It's the old, "if you oppose him, you'll make him stronger" canard that has been fisked over and over again. Besides, even more people are saying we probably should have dealt with him more firmly, earlier. He is an example of a person who cannot be dealt with honestly. His goals are different. He does not want our success and will do whatever he can to sabotage our efforts - probably at the behest of a foreign influence Igatius later says we should be working to appease.

Climbing out on a limb was necessary because we finally couldn't ignore the man any longer. He was starting to do things and publish things and say things that was going to get people killed. If a settlement is reached, it will be on terms that will neutralize that growing threat, and everyone will know where they stand. The message will be left: If you get any of our guys killed, or screw with the program in any way from here on, we will fucking kill you.

I say that's a good thing.

First of all, Ronald Reagan proved that the President can call a nation an "Evil Empire" and still turn around and do the necessary dealing with them. Ignatius' vision is two decades out of focus. As far as Iran's role in Iraq goes, anything, like being viewed as a valuable interlocutor, that strengthens Iran's hand is a bad thing. At best it may be a temporary necessary evil. Nothing more. For more on this, see Michael Ledeen in Opinion Journal here: The Iranian Hand - Regime change in Tehran is necessary for peace in Iraq. and see Dariush Shirazi here: Rethinking The Alliance for more on the British role in the Iran/Iraq situation. Those are just for starters. We do not need more cozying-up with the Mullahs in Iran. The people of Iraq don't need it. The people of Iran don't need it. Iran needs one thing: Regime Change.

Hack off the last paragraph and we agree. Flexibility also means knowing when to say enough is enough. It's knowing when the velvet glove needs to come off and it's time to use hard words and harder power. Maybe now's the time.

But that's the point. Sharon does need this to sell his disengagement plan. What support he may lose on his Far Right, he'll need to make up on his close Left. American support helps that. See Jonathan Edelstein's take for some of that analysis. Further, the United States needs to find some way to move forward and reward Israel for taking steps forward while Arafat and his people keep stepping backward with no shift in sight. The way to do that is simple and traditional: Warm statements and partnership for Sharon, cold-shoulder for Arafat (see David Bernstein for a concise take on this view). This is the diplomatic carrot and the stick, this is the shifting of the starting line to avoid rewarding terror, this is history getting on with it already. It's time for Arafat and the rest to defecate or remove their derrieres from the porcelain. Last chance before history moves on without them - as it always has.

Besides, Sharon's problem is not the "settlers" - it's Palestinians who feel the need to murder Israelis.

The type of diplomacy Ignatius advocates has earned us very, very little over the years. The Israelis don't need an honest broker to divy up the property in a no-fault divorce - they need a Judge, a Jury and a Federal Marshal to enforce the sentence.

George Bush has become adept, in true classical Liberal fashion, at shaking up the pot and edging people out of their comfortable positions. That's why the Europeans hate him, and we right thinking folk, who understand the old ways are accomplishing little...love him.