After this, I assume the NY Times will post an op-ed rebuttal?

The Path From Oslo to War

RAMALLAH, West Bank — To justify Israeli actions, two deliberate distortions of reality are being employed in Israel's war against Yasir Arafat and the Palestinian Authority. First, the government of Ariel Sharon is treating the Palestinian Authority as a full-fledged state when it is nothing of the sort. Second, perhaps more significant for the international community, Israel blames the Palestinian Authority for its failure to provide security for Israel's pursuit of territorial objectives that are clearly illegal under international law.

Two observations. First, Israel has always demanded that Arafat control his terrorist operatives. If they treat him and the Palestinian Authority as a full-fledged state, it seems more a sign of respect that neither deserves. Further, Arafat claims (claimed?) to be able to control the assorted Palestinian terrorist groups. He failed to do so, despite all his loud claims to the contrary. And as his loud "Be quiet!" to Christiane Amanpour (Arafat: Palestinians are 'facing this challenge') shows, he doesn't like being asked questions about that any more.

Second, the "occupied territories" did not belong to any native Palestinian group. Palestine was a territory, a spot on the map, occupied by a slew of different interests, not the least of which were the British who merrily divvied it, and much of the Middle East, as they saw fit. The West Bank belonged to Jordon (aka the Trans-Jordon portion of Saudi Arabia prior to 1948). The Gaza Strip belonged to Egypt. (And, for the sake of completeness, the Golan Heights belonged to Syria.) So if you're cheerily talking about giving these "occupied territories" over to the creation of some hypothetical Palestinian state, don't you first have to talk to those countries, making sure they won't take those bits o' land back? No, I don't trust that they'll just let a new Palestine state exist because if that had ever been a real concern, or continues as a real concern, they'd be doing it right now. These countries didn't give three hoots about any Palestinian movement until after Israel kicked their asses on at least three distinct occasions.

Expanding on that, if Israel were to allow the West Bank and Gaza Strip territories to become a new country of Palestine (a country that has never heretofore existed), wouldn't that mean that Israel would be the liberator of said Palestinian people? After all, for how many years were these lands "occupied" by the countries Israel took them from? (In a time of war, in actions that were clearly in self-defense.)

Food for thought.