Today’s editorial in the Jerusalem Post quite fairly captures, I think, what many level-headed supporters of Israel are thinking in the wake of this latest wave of Palestinian terror attacks.

Let there be no mistake: The United States and Europe could force Yasser Arafat to end his offensive by cutting off all ties and money until he does so. The United States has not chosen to do this, in large part because the Israeli government has not, with a united voice, asked the US to do so. Europe, far from cutting off Arafat, has threatened Israel with sanctions.

What’s interesting about this passage is the self-criticism — the charge that the Israeli government has not articulated its position forcefully enough to the international community (largely owing to issues of political expediency not readily apparent to casual observers).

Similarly, I noticed for the first time in LGF’s commentary section yesterday a sustained strain of criticism leveled against Sharon’s leadership and the Israeli government’s attempts in general to balance politics with the protection of its citizens.

The message emerging from all this, then, is clear: The Israeli government has the right and the obligation to defend its citizens and its land, and all other considerations — allies, time frames, political boundries, international opinion, etc. — are secondary concerns.

Given this situation, Israel has two choices: issuing an unmistakable ultimatum to the international community saying ‘either you stop Arafat or we will’ — or assuming that such an ultimatum is futile and acting accordingly. Instead, we are pursuing a third option: neither presenting the international community with an ultimatum nor acting decisively ourselves.

This third option — waiting for the Palestinians to reach new heights of murder — is not acceptable. It is tantamount to resigning ourselves to more massacres, when we know that whenever Israel finally acts, the world will act to restrain and reverse Israeli actions. But if no number of dead Israelis really convinces the world that Israel has a right to defend itself, then what are we waiting for? Sharon has tried to play along with Bush’s respectful attentions to the concerns of Arab states to an extraordinary degree. Before leaving for Washington last time, he let it be known that he would be asking for Arafat’s ouster, let alone receiving American support along those lines.

Sharon has had two good reasons for indulging Bush, aside from the usual components of the US-Israel relationship. The first reason is that Bush is gearing up to oust Saddam Hussein, and Sharon wants to help Bush in any way to achieve this goal, even if he believes the US is mistakenly linking a need for Middle East calm to acting in Iraq. Second, Sharon knows that Bush would be almost as happy as he would be to see Arafat go, and therefore is willing to follow Bush’s timetable rather than his own.

The only problem with Sharon’s patience and prudence in this instance is the cost in Israeli lives and the further erosion of Israel’s right to defend itself. There comes a point at which Sharon must say to Bush (and to the Labor Party), ‘I’ve tried it your way, but it is not working.’ There comes a point when he must say, ‘You are not only asking me to sacrifice Israeli lives, but this sacrifice does not help you prepare to act in Iraq, because it only encourages further Palestinian attacks.’ There comes a point for Israel to say enough is enough.

And there comes a time for Israel to re-embrace Benjaminn Netanyahu, who’s been conspicuously quiet of late. Unless, that is, Sharon shows the willingness to better defend Israelis on buses and in discos. Which means picking a no-tolerance strategy — one that illustrates to your typical Palestinian on the street (67 percent of whom, remember, support suicide bombings) that there are real, sustained consequences to supporting terrorism as a negotiating tactic — and sticking to it.

[Related: Steven Den Beste analyzes the newly announced Israeli defense policy (a real land for peace deal, this time), before concluding:

[…] I don’t know if it will work, but it has a better chance of working than anything else I can think of that is politically possible for Israel to do. It will work better if there’s a policy of eviction, assuming that Israel is willing to put up with international condemnation for ‘ethnic cleansing’. We’ll know in a couple of days if that is their policy, since it now appears that the Jenin refugee camp is the first seizure. If their goal is eviction and destruction, that’s surely where they will start. (Especially since it will be a slap in the face of the UN, who runs that hellhole via the UNRWA. If Israel truly adopts this policy, it will need to signal to the world that it no longer cares about international condemnation.)

Is such a tactic cruel and immoral? All war is cruel and immoral. But the problem Israel faces now is that every possible course it can follow is both cruel and immoral, either to its enemies or to its own people. The Gandhi option is out because it would lead to the destruction of Israel. Among the various active choices available, this one is far less cruel and immoral than such options as genocide, or nuking Syria.

Which, if this doesn’t work, will be the next step Israel will take in this war.

update: Dean de Freitas asks if Netanyahu in the best option for Israel, given that he’s advocated unilateral separation — a strategy Dean thinks is no longer workable. This is a fair question, but my nod to Netanyahu had more to do with his clearly articulated dismissal of the idea of a workable and sovereign Palestinian state than to his “unilateral separation” leanings. Netanyahu supports self-rule for the Palestinians, but he rightly rules out the sovereign state paradigm, an absurd fantasy in which “Palestine” will be trading arms with Iran and will control passage into Israeli airspace, etc.

I agree, the Palestinians must be soundly defeated before any lasting peace can take place (and in fact, you can extrapolate this lesson out to include the entirety of the Arab nationalist movement, which is just beggin’ for an asswhuppin’). But the scale on which such a defeat must take place for it to be successful ultimately is debatable. Ferocious, yes. Complete? Maybe, maybe not.

update the second: Interesting article in the Jerusalem Post on how Hamas is trying to bypass the U.S. in forging Mideast policy. An excerpt: “The message being sent by the Hamas leadership could not be clearer: Do not delude yourselves, in Washington, to think that your ideas and your diplomacy (and for that matter, your power) will determine the course of events in the Middle East; the will of the Palestinian suicide bomber, expressing the determined fight to wipe the Zionist entity off the map, will prevail.”]