Zionists can be forgiven for being high strung these days. Israel, the only true liberal democracy in the Middle East, has been under a terrible seige. Women, old men, and children are being targeted by suicide-murderers. The Palestinian Authority has until recently done little about this, and some evidence suggests that they have been giving aid to the terrorists.

One can also forgive Palestinians and their friends for being emotionally overwrought. After all, Palestinian civilians...

...are inevitably caught up in the crossfire, and many innocents in Palestine die as a result of these Israeli incursions. No matter what your position, it's hard not to be horrified at the results, especially when we hear about innocent people having their houses bulldozed, their loved ones killed.

I believe that blame for these incursions should fall primarily on the shoulders of Yasser Arafat. This is a man who has never fully renounced terror, publicly, in his native language. He has a long history of condoning and sponsoring terrorism, and fomenting hatred of Jews. Although I'm not a huge fan of WorldNet Daily, and am most especially no fan of Hal Lindsey, Lindsey's recent Open Letter to the Palestinian People on WND sums up my feelings almost perfectly.

On the other hand, some Zionists and their sympathizers have recently been a little over the top. For example, Ara Rubyan, publisher of the Postmodern Politics web site, has been suggesting of late that any negotiation with Yasser Arafat--indeed, even the very act of speaking to Yasser Arafat--amounts to a surrender of the War on Terrorism. He's said so quite bluntly, this recent column taking Bush to task for listening to his advisors being just one example.

Rubyan's assessment is hardly unique. Countless right- and left-wing critics of the Bush administration have implied similar things. So here's my question: What is a nice way of saying that these folks need to close their eyes, take a few deep breaths, and maybe switch to decaf?

So far, the United States has wrought a near-miracle in winning its victory in Afghanistan. We are still fighting there, but can there be any doubt that this is a conflict that's mostly been won? In less than six months, no less? Our troops are even now fighting in several additional countries, even after ten years of military budget cuts. Most military experts agree our forces are at nowhere near the strength they were in 1990, yet we've got one major victory under our belt and are already involved in several new combat theaters.

By comparison, American forces did not even directly engage the Japanese until about six months after Pearl Harbor was bombed in 1942.

The primary bone of contention seems to be the "Bush Doctrine," which stems from the President's early statements that if you harbor terrorists, if you help them, then you are no better than a terrorist. The thinking apparently goes that if you urge temperence by the Israelis in their war against suicide-murderers, or if you so much as speak to Yasser Arafat or his cronies, you have betrayed the war effort.

Let's leave aside the question of whether our troops engaged in combat would appreciate being told that they've already lost. Let's just get to the meat of the matter: does the war on terror, and the Bush Doctrine, require an immediate declaration of war on any person or regime with known terrorist associations? Does it require an absolute refusal to communicate with any such person or regime?

This would be, strategically speaking, taking a doctrine to absurd extremes. We would, for example, immediately refuse to talk to anyone in Northern Ireland with contacts with Sinn Fein, which has some known ties to the IRA. We would instantly close all ties to the Saudis, regardless of the long-term strategic advantage of keeping our airbase within their borders. Taking it to even further extremes, this would even suggest that if we thought we could blackmail Arafat, we would not do it because we aren't supposed to talk to him.

Wars, whatever the rhetoric underlying them, require careful strategic thinking. You don't always get to do everything you want to do, exactly when and how you want to do it. Our long-term goal in World War II was to defeat Japan; in so doing, we were not required to immediately invade Manchuria, Okinawa, the Japanese mainland, and every island in the South Pacific. Nor did it require us to refuse to speak to or negotiate with any regime that ever cooperated with the Japanese Empire.

Bush, since taking office, has refused to so much as be in the same room with Arafat. His loathing for the man has long been apparent to those of us who watch these sorts of things. His administration has had almost no dealings with Arafat (which, predictably, has been the source of much left-wing criticism). So why does it now follow that if we so much as speak to Arafat, we are on a long slide toward defeat, the "Bush Doctrine" nothing but empty rhetoric?

Let's say that a group of bank robbers sticks up a bank, and the police roll up before they can make their getaway. The criminals point their guns at bank employees, creating a hostage situation. In our "we don't negotiate with terrorists" world, are we then to (Option 1) simply open fire on the bank robbers? Or (Option 2) do we bring in a hostage negotiator to talk to the thugs until we can get them to surrender peacefully--or get the thugs' heads into our snipers' sights?

What if Colin Powell meets with Arafat and, essentially, says the following:

"The President has declared that we will consider terrorist any regime that sponsors, endorses, or gives aid to terrorists. We have evidence that you continue to aid terrorism and have no real desire for peace. We have seriously considered refusing to deal with you at all. But because we care about the Palestinians, I am here to tell you that, if you can provide evidence that you have renounced all terrorism, if you will cooperate with us and help us, and if you state publicly, in your native tongue, that Israel has a right to exist and that terrorism hurts the Palestinian cause, we will consider working with you. Any evidence of treachery on your part will mean that we turn our backs on you forever. Many in our administration feel I should not even be offering you this chance. But this is our message, and if you lie to us again, we are done with you forever. And we will tell your people so, for all to hear."

You may feel that it's a waste of time to do this. Maybe Arafat's already proven that he can't be trusted. But if doing this helps us get to Baghdad sooner, or furthers the long-term aim of ending terrorism worldwide, we should do it anyway. Long-term strategic goals often require short-term tactics we may not like.

But even if you disagree with the tactics, do they really mean the war is over?