With the exception of defense contractors and whatever company profits from the technology used in those awkward “via satellite” interviews, no one likes violence and war. The ultimate goal for everyone–even for terrorists–is peace according to their own vision of ideal society. The decision to use violence, guns and bombs in warfare is rarely made lightly; nor should it be, as the unnecessary loss of life is always tragic.

That said, the Bush administration asking Israel to pull out of Palestine is akin to a hunter killing an endangered wolf because it is dangerous and then telling everyone else to learn to live with them.

After all, it was the Bush administration that set a zero-tolerance policy for harboring terrorists. The Taliban government in Afghanistan offered shelter to the terrorist group that perpetrated the Sept. 11 suicide attacks, refused to hand over terrorist leaders and consequently was deposed by Northern Alliance rebels using American support.

Israel seems to be operating according to the same principle. Arafat’s leadership has given shelter to terrorists and refused to hand over them over to Israeli authorities. Now, after the Bush administration’s precedent in Afghanistan, Israel is taking military action.

What can Bush or Powell possibly say to Sharon? “Well, we went after the supporters of those who bombed us with military action, but we demand that you keep trying diplomacy because your military actions puts our Middle East policy in a tough spot.”

I can’t blame Sharon for telling Bush to take a hike.

The administration appears to be taken aback at the current violence in Israel, but what did it really expect? Diplomacy between Israel and Palestine has always been shaky, with majority populations on each side believing real security could only be attained by driving out the most dangerous factions of the other. When Israel’s most ardent supporter wages war against an Islamic fundamentalist state, Palestinian terrorists are going to take action. With America’s implied sanction of military action against regimes harboring terrorists, Israel is going to fight back.

The current situation should come as no surprise to anyone in the administration.

But instead of acting as if it this result was expected all along, Bush and co. are taking the “you need to stop the violence now–and we mean it” approach–a hypocritical one, to say the least. Almost everywhere in the world, governments maintain internal order through a monopoly on violence; this is why vigilante action is replaced with institutional justice in any effective and stable government. The Bush administration, however, seems to want to extend this principle to the rest of the world: The U.S. government not only monopolizes violence amongst its own citizens, but amongst autonomous governments as well.

Now, to be fair, the Bush administration probably neither intends to send such a message nor wants such a responsibility in the world. It simply wants to avoid pissing off a lot of oil-rich Middle East countries that are already a little edgy after the invasion of Afghanistan, and repairing relations with them would be a lot easier if Israel would simply sit down and take it rather than making large-scale military assaults.

The Bush administration has a right–indeed, a duty–to act in the best interest of America. It can ask Israel to work things out peacefully with Arafat; it can urge them toward diplomacy and give support toward that solution; it can try to create a lasting peace. But it cannot demand that Israel pull out of Palestine after waves of terrorist attacks against civilians after having criticized governments that did not support its own war in Afghanistan.

After all, modern American leaders have, since the beginning of the Cold War, wanted the world to accept its leadership-by-example as a sort of father figure.

They have sought the spread of democracy and of capitalism. Now, they are busy hunting the wolves that took thousands of civilian lives last September, under the principle that serious civilian threats must be eliminated.

As a family values man, Bush should know he could not condemn the son for holding the principles of the father.

Matt Lynch ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in English and political science.