We seem to have achieved zugzwang.

Zugzwang is a term used in chess. It was taken from the German language.

It's a bit hard to strictly define.

It refers to a position in which a player is in a relatively strong position, so long as he does not need to move. Any possible legal move the player has will weaken his position, and perhaps lose the game. It also, less commonly, refers to any move in which the player has only one legal move, and he is forced to make it.

It is even possible, though rare, for both players to simultaneously find themselves in zugzwang. Then, the player with the initiative loses.

That is the position into which Sharon and Arafat have so inexpertly manuvered themselves. Each must act, though any of their available somethings can only escalate an already untenable situation.

Unfortunately, by their incompetence, they seemed destined to drag much of the West, and all of the Arab world, into this tarpit along with them.

Sharon has little in the way of options. The first responsibilty of any government is to defend the people. No head of state could allow the action of the bombers go unpunished. On a pro rata basis, the forty Israelis killed just last week by suicide bombers woud represent about 2500 US citizens, very nearly the number killed in the WTC attacks. Not surprisingly, the vast majority, over 75%, of the Israeli people support his punitive actions against the Palestinian leaders.

Should he waver in the least from his hard line, Benjamin Netanyahu would have his seat, and where Sharon smites the Palestinians with a fist, Netanyahu would surely smash them with an armored gauntlet.

Yet these very retaliations fuel even greater resentment throughout the entire Arab world, and decrease the odds of a long-term peaceful settement.

Arafat, too, finds himself riding a tiger. Were he to back down, he would find himself marginalized by his people, and lose even the modicum of control he has over the more radical elements of the Palestinian people. This, of course, presupposes that Arafat in fact sees his actions as a unfortunate neccessity, and not a winning tactic.

It has become increasingly clear that Arafat has, while decrying terror attacks as a tactic to the Western press, in fact has continued to encourage these attacks. The disconnect between his remarks to the international community on the issue and those to the Palestinian people, (never in English, of course, so as to discourage their wide dissemination) is so complete so as to lead one to believe that perhaps they are being made by two entirely different Arafats.

Similarly, one can be sure that Arafat's concilatory statements, in English of course, are not seen by the rank and file Palestinian citizens over the broadcast airwaves he controls.

Even more incentive for Arafat is that his strategy seems to be working. By provoking ever more draconian measures by the Israelis, he has been able to generate sympathy for the real suffering imposed upon his people as a result of his actions, like a beggar maiming or mutilating his child to generate more sympathy, as translated into alms in the beggar's bowl.

The Israelis will eventually be forced to either capture or kill Arafat, despite US and international pressure to keep him around, as it will prove to be impossible to negotiate a lasting peace so long as he is in control of the process. The latter option would be much the wiser one, as his exile would accomplish exactly the same result that it did in 1983, that is to say, nothing.

Nor does President Bush have much leeway for action. He may bluster and attempt to pressure Sharon, but in the end, both men must know that due to his own domestic political considerations, Bush cannot in fact punish Israel in any significant manner. Bush cannot cut off financial or military aid to Israel, withdraw diplomats, or impose trade embargos. He cannot, truly, even threaten to do so in public without launching a maelstrom of backlash in the Congress.

Even less likely is the imposition of any military solution involving US troops as a peacekeepers in some buffer or security zones between the warring parties. The odds of the American public supporting putting US troops in harm's way in this conflict are slim indeed.

So, what is left for Bush to use to coerce Sharon into a softer stance? I can't imagine a thing.

Even if Bush could devise some pressure I cannot imagine, his actions are further handcuffed by his dogmatic "with us or against us," black and white doctrine on the war on terrorism. It would be the height of hypocrisy for Bush to castigate Israel for actions designed to root out the perpetrators of terrorists acts, and punish the regime that succors them.

Yet, if he does not, he will certainly lose international support for his greater aim, the overthrow of Saddam, a much more important American strategic aim. Again, zugzwang.

The US is now harnessed to an ally over which we have little control, and who we cannot realistically abandon. Even though there is no vital national interest, there exist political and cultural bonds that will prove unbreakable. This ally is in a position where it has no palatable options, and is in a death struggle with a foe that will continue to use terror tactics so long as they seem to advance the cause.

Zugzwang.

So, how will this all play out? Arafat has seriously underestimated the depth of the US commitment to the Israelis. The Administration may mouth all the horrified platitudes for public consumption, but will in the end stand still for anything the Sharon government choses to do.

The Israel and the Palestinians can never learn to peacefully coexist, at least not for generations to come. The depth of the rancor between the peoples will not allow it. An entire generation of Arab youths have been trained in the religious schools financed by the Saudis to hate the Jews, and this conditioning will not wear off any faster than the racism in the American South did after the Civil War.

The proposed Saudi peace plan will falter. Many Israelis will see any return to the 1967 borders as merely the first step to complete destruction of the state, with just cause. However, the truly insurmountable obstacle will prove to be the issue of the return of Palestinian refugees. The Israelis simply cannot allow this without the complete destruction of their identity as a Jewish nation.

It may prove that some compromise treaty can be signed. However, there is no reason to suspect that terror attacks would not continue after any negotiated settlement that does not give the Palestinians everything they want, particularly the right of return. After all, the precedent will have been set; it will have been proven that one can, at least in this case, advance an agenda through terrorist attacks.

Since they cannot or will not coexist, either the nation of Israel or the Palestinian Authority will lose this fight, and cease to exist. For several reasons, not the least of which is a much superior military, Israel will win this fight. In the process, they will manage to ignite a conflict that will pit much of the Arab world against the West in general as represented by the US in particular. Bin Laden's gambit will have proved to be a successful one.

This conflict will be primarily economic, as the Arab nations will attempt to cut the West of from the oil on which it is dependent. However, this conflict will also consist of more terror attacks on the US, and any of the allies that chose to side with us, both here and abroad, along with conventional military actions in places such as Iraq.

Ultimately, sometime over the next decade or so, this conflict will result in the overthrow by the West, by military and economic means, of the theocratic Arab states, and the establishment of representative democracies in this last bastion of totalitarian rule on the planet. This will reverse the course that the Arab Islamic states began in the 13th century away from modernism.

This rebirth of Islamic culture will not take place without copious bloodshed, and we in the West might as well resign ourselves to that fact. We have been raised to have a fairly optimistic worldview, to think that there can always be a peaceful, negotiated, way out of almost any dilemma, because the other fellow is pretty much just like us, "just folks." We are largely, sometimes willfully, ignorant of the breadth and depth of hatred, racism, and intolerance of all flavors that abound outside our national borders, and what a violent and nasty world it can be.

Sometimes the options available are not the ones we would chose. Some nations, like some people, cannot be reformed, they can only be destroyed.

Zugzwang.