By midday every Saturday, the mile-long main drag of Abu Gosh – an Arab village twelve miles west of Jerusalem – is jammed with hundreds of Israeli cars. Abu Gosh’s restaurants, shops and markets are crowded with Israeli families who made it a tradition to eat and shop here when Jerusalem’s Jewish shops are closed for the Sabbath. Even today, when incited Arab mobs are attacking Jewish neighborhoods fifteen minutes drive away from here, this peaceful tradition persists; nor can you discern any tension here, except for that of scurrying waiters and busy cashiers servicing the many customers.

Arafat’s decision to extort further Israeli concessions by violence has almost ruined the Palestinian economy, and confounded those advocating economic advancement as a precondition to peace.

Kalachniokov fire may gain Arafat the sympathy he seeks from the Arab street and from European chancelleries and media. It may promote his strategy of Balkanizing the conflict with Israel. But it does not produce goods and services, and it certainly does not encourage the massive investments in the Palestinian economy needed to create the jobs that can lift Palestinians from dismal poverty, and give them a real stake in peace.

The putative peace process has failed because it was based on the false assumption that politics can radically reshape reality.

Fantasies, often misrepresented as “vision”, can sometimes be politically useful. But once they clash with reality, they collapse like the Maccabia Bridge. Right into the poisoned muck.

Oslo was predicated on the notion that you can have “a peace process” between politicians (if that is the correct appellation for Arafat and his henchmen) above people’s heads. Sure, there was talk about confidence-building measures. But in reality, Oslo generated terror and threats that made most Israelis wary, while the Palestinian Arabs only suffered greater poverty and repression since Israel helped establish Arafat’s corrupt regime – that Arafat is skilled in manipulating their rage, directing it against Israel is another story.

Superficially, the division of Jerusalem may seem justified, on practical as well as moral grounds. After all, good fences make good neighbors, etc.; but, to reconcile conflicting claims, why not perform a Solomon-like division of what is in dispute.

The proponents of division mostly argue practicality: since the two communities cannot live together, they should separate. In real life, however, cutting a city in half is easier said than done, and having two sovereigns govern different parts may prove not only an impossible task, but also a dangerous one, leading to total chaos.