The onslaught of relentless Palestinian terror has forced Israel to take increasingly drastic countermeasures. With the more than two hundred homicide bombers who have assiduously blown up innocent women and children, Israel has had to use more expansive countermeasures.

Israel uses these measures not as a response, but as part of a strategy to defend its people. There is no moral equivalence to strapping poison-laced, nail-and-bolt laden TNT to your chest to guarantee the most casualties.

Although bombs have had various success rates (depending on your view), what would Israel do if there was ever a mega-terror attack? Would Israel respond with a nuclear weapon, a highly unlikely move that would instigate regional geopolitical meltdown, or is there a hidden policy that, although politically incorrect, is ultimately correct?

President Bush might have called for the establishment of a Palestinian state, but in reality, one already exists, a 75 percent Palestinian state named Jordan. Despite the regional demographics, the Palestinian Authority (PA) under the caustic leadership, or deleadership, of Yassir Arafat has resorted to violence time and time again. Israel, on the other hand, has time and time again offered peace, but the lack of any honest partner has led to two years of continued death for both sides. Obviously, a major bureaucratic change is needed within the Palestinian administration.

For years, Jordan has become increasingly apprehensive about the intentions of the PA. Even moreso, they have become apprehensive of Arafat’s ulterior motives to annex the eastern bank of Jordan. If the West in conjunction with Israel, in an international setting like the United Nations, sponsors an agreement whereby all Palestinians become Jordanians (they were before), it will be in Jordan’s best interests. Consequently, there will be only one Palestinian state, the Jordanian state, and the threat feared by Jordan will be removed.

Moreover, is it not in the whole world’s best interest to have a Western-friendly regime rather than a Hamas? What would Abdullah II do if he had to fight against a Hamas? If Jordan, the West, and most importantly, the Palestinians, all benefit, does it not make so much more sense to transfer?

We are not talking about a forced transfer, just a transfer of administration and infrastructure. If the Palestinians were ruled by an Arab power, might they be more inclined not to blow themselves up? If this is to be the final solution, what about the refugees? Given that the refugees were only a result of Arab pressure to leave their homes in the War of 1948 in order to make way for invading armies, I say it is an Arab problem – let them deal with it. It is not Israel’s place to dictate terms.

The Arab world calls Israel’s War of Independence “Al-Nakba,” meaning “catastrophe”. It is thus a great “catastrophe” that they resort to homicide when civil transfer is a viable option.