The sixth anniversary of the September 11^th attacks should have inspired remembrance and gratitude, since we’ve so far been spared the horror of another terrorist assault on American soil.

But unfortunately, commemorations this year were marred by a disturbing trend in our culture: polls show more than 30% of our fellow citizens believe 9/11 was an “inside job.” The so-called “9/11 Truth Movement” obsesses on a range of ludicrous suspicions about Building Seven, a missile—not a plane—striking the Pentagon, dynamite charges at the base of the twin towers, and so forth.

Aside from the poisonous impact on public discourse of such lunatic notions, the people who focus on these theories do incalculable damage to themselves. Someone who entertains the idea that his own government is part of a mass-murdering conspiracy will not only destroy his political effectiveness, but also make success in career and marriage far less likely.

Normal, productive individuals prefer to avoid long-term association with paranoid nuts.

Quarterback Michael Vick may never play again after pleading guilty to a dog-fighting charge, but Denver Broncos running back Travis Henry signed a $25 million contract earlier this year—despite his record as a dead-beat dad with nine out-of-wedlock children with nine different women. At least seven of the mothers went to court to get 28-year-old Henry to help support his off-spring—even as he spent $100,000 on a new car and $146,000 on jewelry for himself. Even if he obeys court orders to send money, the long-term damage to society remains severe: children growing up in fatherless households face innumerable emotional, educational, and even criminal problems. America will only begin to make progress against the plague of out-of-wedlock birth when celebrity skunks like Travis Henry fall from their privileged positions and, as columnist DeWayne Wickham rightly demands, the NFL takes cruel treatment of children at least as seriously as horrible abuse of dogs.

The city of Seattle has committed the staggering sum of $6.6 million for three high tech public toilets for the homeless. The pricy privies, with purportedly advanced but frequently malfunctioning self-cleaning features, have already become a magnet for prostitutes and drug dealers according to a report to the city council, while attracting at least as much filth as traditional porta-potties—that would have cost the city less than one-twentieth as much to lease and maintain. Meanwhile, the Seattle Times describes city parks where human waste appears nightly on benches, just yards from the gleaming techie toilets installed with so much fanfare. The city council defends the inane program as a noble attempt to “do something” for the homeless—illustrating the folly of good intentions. In truth, any effort – public or private—that makes it easier for transients to continue sleeping on the streets, only harms these unfortunates – as well as deeply damaging the downtown neighborhoods they invade and occupy. True compassion for the homeless begins with an absolute refusal to allow them to continue living on sidewalks, in alleys, underpasses, parks or empty lots, and certainly must avoid any move at all to facilitate or prolong such urban camping.

The new CBS reality show "Kid Nation" has inspired appropriate controversy even before its scheduled premiere on September 19^th. Promotional materials describe 40 children who are disgusted with the way adults have "messed up" the world and so will create a new society in the New Mexico desert with, the show promises, "no parents and no teachers." What an inspiring concept!

 

No, I haven't seen the show (because it's not yet been made available to critics) but its publicity materials reveal a distinctly socialist bent, with youthful idealists "learning to share everything, without greed." Fidel Castro himself would be proud. Meanwhile, the age range of the kids is itself cause for queasiness: with eight-year olds entrusted over weeks to unrelated fifteen year-olds, while TV producers openly encourage sleazy speculation about their various and complex and unconventional relationships.

 

A release form signed by the parents of the kids absolves the producers of responsibility if any of the participants--including the eight-year-olds--comes home with sexually transmitted diseases. "Kid Nation" serves as one more media effort to undermine the authority and importance of parenthood and adulthood in general, while shamefully sexualizing even pre-pubescent children. Yet another noble contribution from network TV -- congratulations!

 

  Everybody seems to agree that Idaho Senator Larry Craig is “disgusting” (in Mitt Romney’s now famous phrase) but there’s widespread confusion as to why.

 

  The conventional wisdom suggests that the prime element in his disgrace involves his “hypocrisy” --- Senator Craig opposed same-sex marriage at the same time that he apparently pursued degrading gay behavior in his private life.

 

   But a simple thought experiment proves that the reprehensible nature of the Senator’s behavior hardly depends on his “hypocrisy” or his political stance. Imagine that he took the opposite position on gay marriage – and all other issues of interest to homosexuals, including extending civil rights and hate crimes “protections” on the basis of sexual orientation. Imagine, in short, that his position on social issues approximated the platform of Dennis Kucinich rather than the platform of Mike Huckabee.

 

  If this alternate-reality version of Senator Craig – an “enlightened” Senator with a 100% approval rating from the Human Rights Campaign – were to plead guilty for lewd behavior because of soliciting sex from an undercover cop in a Minnesota men’s room, would his behavior count as any more acceptable?

 

  While die-hard liberals might feel a greater instinct to excuse such conduct from a Democratic Senator who got busted in a bathroom, the public would no doubt express the same revulsion regarding the Solon’s conduct --- even if they didn’t get the chance to mock his plaintive insistence that “I’m not gay.”

 

  In other words, it’s the very nature of Craig’s behavior (with the Minnesota bust allegedly not the first time he’s engaged in such sleazy activity) that destroyed his career and his dignity –not the contrast between that behavior and his professed defense of the family.

 

  Consider the example of Oregon Senator Bob Packwood. Yes, he was a Republican, but he was strongly pro-abortion, and widely hailed as the most “enlightened” and “pro-feminist” GOP’er in the Senate. That didn’t help him when it became clear that he had manhandled literally dozens of female visitors to his office—the shame was so great that his career collapsed, even though no one had ever identified Packwood as a “family values” conservative.

 

   A closer examination of the entire Craig conundrum makes it clear that it’s soliciting sex in men’s rooms that’s inherently disgusting – irresponsible, anti-social, profoundly self-destructive behavior--regardless of the political or religious affiliations of the individual who engages in these practices.

 

   With this point in clear focus, it’s worth considering the left’s current attempt to discredit all conservatives – or at least all religious conservatives—by dwelling on Larry Craig’s disgrace.

 

  If the essence of his shame involves his behavior itself, rather than the political positions he may have taken, then the relevant question is: are religious conservatives as a group more likely than members of other groups to pursue (or defend) anonymous sex in bathrooms?

 

  The answer ought to be obvious. There are at the very least 50 million Americans who proudly identify themselves as “religious conservatives.” The percentage of these people who engage in cheap thrills in public toilets would be very, very small. The percentage of religious conservatives who would defend, or even glamorize, such conduct would be absolutely zero.

 

   For the sake of contrast, consider the gay male community. Of course, the great majority of homosexual men have never participated in sex acts in rest rooms. But it’s safe to say that the percentage of gay males who have accumulated such experiences would be vastly higher than in any other group in the population. Arrests of heterosexual males or females for public sex in toilets are virtually non-existent. Arrests of homosexual men for such degradation is, however, comparatively common ---creating a current and raging controversy, for instance, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, because of Mayor Naugle’s determination to halt the practice.

 

  Moreoever, some gay activists and artists even speak out in favor of toilet sex. British playwright Joe Orton proudly described his own participation in such encounters with strangers, and the acclaimed movie about his life (“Prick Up Your Ears”) featured lush, lavishly romantic scenes of homosexual embraces in filthy bathrooms.

 

   This brings us back to the question of using the Craig case to smear conservatives.

 

   If it’s the behavior itself, and not the hypocrisy, that makes the soon-to-be-former Idaho Senator disgusting, then only one group should feel discredited and ashamed over this means of “sexual expression”: the only segment of society that practices or justifies restroom encounters with strangers.

 

   It requires twisted logic indeed to try to use the appropriate public revulsion with this degeneracy to try to attack social conservatives as a movement, when they never condone, and very rarely practice, such sad and despicable behavior.

 

  Meanwhile, one can only hope that the unfortunate Larry Craig will ultimately seek and receive the help and healing he very obviously needs.

 

The city of San Francisco has brought together an urgent new task force to devise strategies for combating the problem of “black flight” – the falling number of city residents who identify as African American. Many major cities-- including Houston, Seattle, Los Angeles, and even Washington,.DC—have seen dramatic reductions in the percentage of black residents. While urban leaders told a hand-wringing reporter from USA Today that this “crisis” demands action, there ought to be wide spread celebration of the new mobility among people of color. The national black population continues to grow, but more and more African Americans choose to move out of the inner city and into the suburbs. This is actually an indication of economic progress, and a sign that housing discrimination no longer locks black people into over-crowded urban neighborhoods. In the name of diversity, bureaucrats in San Francisco and elsewhere want to keep citizens trapped in cities they prefer to leave, thereby demonstrating the ultimate plantation mentality.

A raging controversy in Broward County, Florida, highlights the uncompromising fanaticism of secular militants. A new charter school that offers one hour a day of Hebrew language instruction has drawn opposition because critics claim that the language itself carries religious connotations, breaching the wall of separation between church – or synagogue -- and state. Other charter schools offer French, Russian, Chinese or other foreign language curricula with scant opposition, but the ACLU has threatened a law suit against Hebrew, and letting parents choose the emphasis they want.  As a result, the 400 students at Ben Gamla Academy have been banned from studying Hebrew for at least three weeks until the school board finishes debating the issue. Even a Hebrew “welcome” sign on the building needed to come down – because the words, literally translated, mean “blessings on those who come in.” This would be like banning the word “goodbye” in public schools because it originates from the phrase “God be with ye.”

As the President and the Senate ponder the appointment of a new Attorney General, they ought to agree on one urgent proposition: we need to cut back dramatically on the metastasizing bureaucracy at the Justice Department. The new Attorney General will preside over one of the fastest growing operations in government, deploying a veritable army of 114,000 federal employees, at a staggering cost of $45 billion. This gargantuan department features countless sub-agencies, including “The Office of Attorney Recruitment and Management,” “The Office on Violence Against Women,” and “The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.” Such efforts involve federal intrusions into local responsibilities for law enforcement. Battered wives shouldn’t rely on Washington bureaucrats to prevent and punish “violence against women”—that’s the job of local cops and prosecutors. The nation suffers from far too many law suits and lawyers, and a great place to begin reform would be shrinking—radically-- the sprawling inefficiency at the bloated Justice Department.

With the announcement of the Gonzales resignation, we should no doubt prepare for several days of heavy-breathing analysis about the deeper impact on the mood in Washington, on policy, on the Presidential campaign, on the War on Terror, on the Bush legacy, and so forth. My reaction to all these deep thoughts and heavy-duty historic analyses: fuhgettaboutit! The drive to push out Gonzales didn’t matter, and his ultimate resignation doesn’t matter.

Most Americans never cared about the “US Attorney Firings Scandal.” Yawn city! Bush-haters of course saw it as the ultimate evidence of the would-be-dictator’s partisan heavy-handedness, but the third of us who support the administration saw DC business as usual and the other third of disinterested Americans saw no significance or horror or flashy embarrassments. The scandal never amounted to anything before this week, and it won’t amount to anything now.

Nor will the departure of one of the President’s most loyal associates matter very much in terms of governance or policy. The AG is the most over-rated job in government, bar none. Sure, it’s a prestigious title – but looking back on all the Attorneys General in recent history, can you name one major accomplishment by any of them? Robert Kennedy comes to mind, but only because he got considerable publicity as the President’s kid brother. Can anyone even remember the Clinton AG’s?

As Attorney General, the next Bush appointment (no, I don’t expect a Democrat or a liberal) will face a huge, intractable, absurdly expensive bureaucracy that’s often hostile to the top guy (as was the case with Alberto).

The only way that an AG could make a real difference is calling for reducing the size of the Justice Department bureaucracy--- getting rid of thousands of unnecessary employees who busy themselves trying to enforce unnecessary, intrusive laws. The Civil Rights division, for instance, is an arrogant, bureaucratic, self-righteous nightmare.

We’re a lawyer-ridden society. We all suffer from two many lawsuits, too many lawyers, too many laws. A great place to start the simplification and liberation process – the only place to start any real reform agenda – is with the Justice Department itself.

If you think the nation would miss, say, 5,000 employees (at a taxpayer cost of, say, $500,000) at the Department of Justice, I’d love to see how.

As a matter of fact, maybe Bush should consider making the point of the bloated, useless, intrusive nature of the Department of Justice by leaving the post of Attorney General unfilled – and then seeing whether America somehow suffers.

 

  There’s one question about the Iraq War that Democrats can’t answer, or even confront:

  Is this struggle a deeply significant historical confrontation, or just a silly waste of effort, blood and resources?

   If the war is important, how can we afford to lose?

   And if it’s just a distraction, then why do its critics focus so obsessively on the issue--- with all the overheated rhetoric about the “biggest mistake” and “greatest disaster” in US history?

   In other words, how will history remember this war? Is it a turning point of some kind, a hugely important episode that overshadows lesser issues in politics?

   Or is it simply a political football, with both sides playing games to try to gain partisan advantage, with no huge security consequences for either success or failure on the field of battle?

   The Vietnam War unquestionably represented a huge event in our history – claiming 58,000 American lives (when our population was more than 30% smaller than today), wrecking the economy, helping provoke urban riots and campus shutdowns and forcing the total restructuring of our military (away from reliance on the draft). The Asian consequences of the war received eloquent (and accurate) treatment earlier this week by the President of the United States. All in all, we associate Vietnam with a terrible time in our history – an era of punishing inflation, collapsing US influence, Communist advance, skyrocketing crime, racial extremism, violent radical movements in the US, and so forth.

   Making the case that the Iraq War has wrought the same kind of havoc on this generation is not only difficult, but impossible. Even if we fought for three more years, with the same rate of battlefield death we’ve so far endured (God forbid), we’d only then reach 10% of the human cost of Vietnam….more like 7% as a percentage of our population. The economy has hardly been wrecked --- by a ration of more than 3 to one, respondents told the latest Harris Poll that their personal situation has “improved” in the last five years, and 94% express satisfaction (with 56% VERY satisfied) regarding their private status. The Treasury Department yesterday reported another decline in the federal budget deficit (far greater decline than predicted)—to a mere 1.2% of GDP, nearing historic lows.

   So if the war is so devastating, such a disaster for us, why is the country in such great shape, with the US safe from major assault on our shores ever since 9/11?

   Isn’t it obvious that the reason the Democrats focus with such ferocity on Iraq as “the defining issue of our time” is not even that they believe it --- but because they know that with all the good news surrounding our country, their concentration on Iraq is the only way they can sustain their cherished mantra of Bush as “the worst president in history” who has, allegedly, ruined everything?

   In a shockingly optimistic nation (by nine to one, Harris Poll respondents expect even more improvement in the next five years) the Dems need Iraq as a symbol of failure and incompetence for their political purposes – regardless of progress on the ground.

   

    

 

As the golden and glorious days of summer begin to grow shorter and, in many places, somewhat cooler, the furious competition in major league baseball and major league politics turns suddenly serious. While The National Pastime watches a memorable stretch drive unfold on the way to the playoffs (with Cinderella “pretenders” like Seattle and Milwaukee very much in the hunt, and surprising strength from once-floundering fan favorites like the Cubs and the Yankees) the Presidential contenders also advance the sorting process through debates, straw polls, fundraising and public opinion surveys. In effect, the politicos in both leagues (Republican and Democratic) haven’t yet entered their regular seasons: they’re concluding a painfully extended “Spring Training” with a long exhibition schedule of games that don’t count (like the Illinois or Alabama straw polls) but will still help to determine which players make it to major league rosters and those who get sent back down to the minor leagues. For instance, among Democrats it’s fairly obvious that grizzled veterans like Dodd, Biden, and Gravel don’t belong in the “show” and don’t even really qualify for Triple A ball, while fan-favorite Kucinich may make the cut on entertainment value alone. As for Beltin’ Bill Richardson (who actually came close to major league baseball once upon a time) he’d only make the Big League  roster now as a bench warmer/replacement player in case one of the real Major Leaguers (Hillary, Barack and Con Edwards) faced some mishap and couldn’t make the lineup on opening day.

The Republicans boast more candidates for their final roster: Romney, Rudy and McCain (though slowed somewhat by age and controversy) all look like genuine Big Leaugers, while Thompson and surprise rookie Huckabee should all be around for the regular season. As to Tancredo, Hunter, Brownback, and Paul, they already appear to be playing in a different (non-professional) league.

Ultimately, we’ll get through the political playoffs (at convention time next summer, long after the baseball pennant races for 2007 have concluded) and then we’ll move on to a political world series, with Hillary the best bet to represent the Democratic Nationals (the Senior Circuit) and Romney or Rudy probably still the best bets to play for the Republican Americans (of the Junior Circuit).

As in baseball, the strategizing is complex, the games can be slow and heavy in ritual, but the process remains captivating, unpredictable and, ultimately, inspiring and all-American.

In other words, let’s sing the national anthem and then “Play Ball!” --- and Go Mariners!

Professor Arthur Brooks of Syracuse University brings encouraging news for religious conservatives in our ongoing struggle for the soul of the country: we’re producing far more children than our secular leftist neighbors. Brooks sees a 41% fertility gap between secular and religious people, but another recent study shows that with more and more Americans going to college this advantage could evaporate. Some two thirds of students raised in church-going families who attend university reduce their religious participation during higher education, and nearly 30% of them never come back to regular, monthly attendance at religious services. This means a national increase in religious affiliation and conservative values depends on doing a better job at keeping our kids connected to Biblical principles during their college years. Among all the ministries and outreach programs, the efforts to inspire and touch busy, often conflicted American college kids may be the most important for building a growing majority of people of faith.

Democrats have tried to blame President Bush for the tragic bridge collapse in Minnesota but there’s a real villain that contributed to the catastrophe: the nation’s irrational obsession with mass transit. As long ago as 1999, engineers found cracks in the bridge that collapsed and indicated their “major concern,” but neither the state nor federal governments addressed the problem. As the Wall Street Journal pointed out, the feds paid $12 million to Minnesota in 2005, but $10 million of it went to a commuter rail line and none to bridge repair. Meanwhile, the state spends $1.6 billion on transportation, but nearly a billion of the total was diverted to light rail that has brought about no notable reduction in traffic congestion. The Minnesota Department of Economic Development reported that 25% of state transportation funding goes to rail and buses, but only 2.8% of commuters get to work that way – in other words, the state disproportionately funds mass transit by a ration of nearly ten to one! This is typical of the liberal infatuation with wildly expensive light rail systems that make no practical sense, and gobble up funding that could otherwise pay for infrastructure maintenance and repairs for our crucial roads and bridges.

   Liberals reveal their appalling hypocrisy when they proudly claim to oppose the influence of religion on politics, and then try to cite the Bible to argue against the death penalty..

   In one typical expression of sentiment, just today I spotted a bumper-sticker declaring, “The Last Time They Mixed Religion and Politics They Burned People at the Stake.”

   Nevertheless, opponents of capital punishment frequently resort to scriptural citations or faith-based arguments to try to make their case. The same “progressives” who react with horror at Christian, pro-life arguments when it comes to the issue of abortion, seem to welcome misguided Christian arguments against capital punishment.

   This point came home to me with unusual force during synagogue services this last Saturday. The weekly portion of the Bible which was read out loud this week by all Jews, everywhere, included verses (Deuteronomy 19: 11-13) that leave little doubt as to the Old Testament’s insistence on the death penalty. Scripture declares that “if there be a man who hates his fellow, and ambushes him mortally, and he dies” then the killer cannot escape to one of the established “Cities of Refuge” intended for perpetrators of accidental death. With a pre-mediated murder, the Bible says: “Your eye shall not pity him; you shall remove the innocent blood from Israel; and it shall be good for you.”

  Concerning this passage, the authoritative Twelfth Century sage, Maimonides, offers an explanation with haunting contemporary resonance: “The verse concludes that by executing the murderer, the nation will insure that it shall be good for you, because compassion for a murderer breeds further bloodshed, since it frees him from death and sets an example for others, who may be tempted to follow his example.”

   In other words, misplaced compassion for a pre-meditated murderer brings cruel consequences for future innocent victims – as recent academic studies of the death penalty and its powerful deterrent impact very clearly indicate.

   In response to the Old Testament’s direct (and frequently repeated) authorization of capital punishment, Christian opponents of the death penalty claim that Jesus replaced the harsh Mosaic law of justice with a new Gospel of forgiveness and mercy. They cite the famous Gospel injunction to “turn the other cheek” or the suggestion that “he who is without sin should cast the first stone,” without acknowledging that these exhortations apply to individual conduct and not to governmental authorities. In the New Testament, in fact, Paul makes clear in Romans 13:4 that believers should not expect society to abolish capital punishment: “But if you do evil, be afraid; for (the governing authority) does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister; an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.”

   Moreover, the same section of Matthew’s Gospel that includes the celebrated exhortations to “love thine enemy” and “turn the other cheek” begins with Christ’s unequivocal declaration (Matthew 5: 17-18) that he has no intention of abrogating properly interpreted Old Testament law: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”

   In this context, the early Church unhesitatingly endorsed the death penalty. Clement of Alexandria, the great scholar and teacher of the Second Century, declared that “if someone falls into incurable evil – when taken possession of by wrong or covetousness – it will be for his good if he is put to death.” In the Fourth Century, St. Jerome (venerated by Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Lutherans alike) wrote that execution of “murderers, blasphemers and poisoners” is not “shedding of blood, but administration of laws.” Aquinas also strongly reasoned for the death penalty, and as recently as the Catechism of Trent (1566), the Catholic Church unequivocally affirmed that “lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent.”

  Of course, the Church has changed its position in recent years (particularly since the Second Vatican Council in 1962-65), in most cases discouraging the death penalty as non-reformative and non-rehabilitative. In terms of religious authority, however, sacred scholars and teachers many centuries closer to Jesus and his message (not to mention closer to Moses and his law) affirmed and prescribed the death penalty with scant hesitation.

  In short, the attempt by opponents of capital punishment to cite Biblical authority not only ignores the plain language of Old Testament and New Testament text as well as thousands of years of authoritative interpretation, but also highlights the hypocritical willingness of secular progressives to trot out religious arguments (no matter how specious) whenever it helps them to make their feeble case.  

 What does it say about a people if its proudest boast involves a universal, national desire for martyrdom?

  That’s the most important question raised by a recent AP interview with an eleven year old Palestinian TV star, Saraa Barhoum. She won international attention as host of “Tomorrow’s Pioneers,” a show for children featured on the Hamas sponsored Al Aksa  Television. Her former co-star, a clumsy mime in a Mickey Mouse suit named Farfour, disappeared from the show after a plot line suggested he had honored “the path of martyrdom” in a confrontation with a brutish Israeli. Quickly replaced by the same guy (apparently), this time in a bumble-bee suit (complete with black work shoes plainly visible beneath the yellow tights), the legacy of Farfour lives on with daily suggestions that all kiddies in the audience should follow his example of commitment to jihad.

   Asked about the grim story of the honored hero Farfour, little Saraa commented: “A lot of people in Palestine have died as martyrs and lost of Palestinians hope to be martyrs. This is one of the ends.” Asked if she hoped to become a martyr herself, Saraa – a beautiful child in a flowered hijab – vigorously nodded her head. “Of course,” she said. “It’s something to be proud of. Every Palestinian citizen hopes to be a martyr.”   

  It would be bad enough is she were endorsing a unanimous yearning for suicide, but she’s also urging a simultaneous commitment to murder.

  In his important new book “Religion of Peace?” Robert Spencer explains the crucial distinction between Christian and Islamic concepts of martyrdom:

 

  “In both Greek and Arabic, ‘martyr’ means ‘witness,’ and in both Christianity and Islam one who gives his life for the faith is considered to have borne witness to the truth of the faith to the highest degree. But in Islam there is an aggressiveness to this concept that is missing in Christianity. The Qur’an’s only absolute guarantee of a place in Paradise is given to those who “slay and are slain’ for Allah (9:111), whereas there is nothing in the Christian concept of martyrdom about martyrs receiving a reward for killing unbelievers.”

 

  In other words, when that charming little girl, Saraa, talks about her desire to martyr herself (as the preferred alternative to her career second choice, as a doctor), she’s not only speaking about taking her own life, but also endorsing the idea of murdering my sweet Israeli niece, who’s just about her age.

  The fact that virtually no one in authority in the Gaza Strip, or anywhere else in the Islamic world, speaks out concerning the despicable insanity of an eleven year-old girl hoping to “slay and be slain,” indicates the current pointlessness of most peace overtures.

   Until leaders of the Palestinian Authority are just as outraged as Israelis and Americans by the idea of training small children for suicidal terror, any “peace” agreement would remain meaningless.

   Some thirty years ago, the late Prime Minister of Israel, Golda Meir, famously (and prophetically) observed: “We will only have peace when the Palestinians decide that they want to see their own children to live more than they want to see our children die.”