Is U.S. role in terrorism acceptable?

Think of it as terrorism’s version of Social Security: The Palestinian Authority has passed a law that grants a $250 stipend to the families of suicide bombers. The day after the law was approved, a man blew himself up in a shopping mall, killing five, hurting dozens.

News travels fast.

But this cannot be! Surely the new head of the P.A. will veto this, you think. Mahmoud Abbas is nothing like Yasser Arafat. He wears a suit and a tie!

Alas for those who put great stock in Western appearances, Abbas approved the law, his ability to tie a Windsor knot not withstanding.

Granted, it would be worse if Arafat were alive – the stipend would have been $500, half of it would have gone into Arafat’s pocket, and a quarter would have been paid to phantom families that did not exist. (If anyone could have combined terrorism and featherbedding and invent the concept of the no-show suicide bomber, it would have been Arafat.)

So perhaps one should withhold criticism. Perhaps the correct spin would be “New Family Benefit Highlights P.A. Anti-Corruption Effort.”

Who pays for the stipend? Americans. Europeans.

The P.A. is not exactly an economic powerhouse; aside from the greenhouses left to the P.A. by settlers kicked out of Gaza, the only thing the P.A. produces that the world wants is a big Victim Stick with which scowling leftists can beat the Zionists.

The Palestinian Authority relies on handouts, and it’s easy to understand why the European Union pays up – protection money, business kickbacks, goopy-headed notions of solidarity with the oppressed, topped with a delicious glaze of carmelized anti-Semitism. Win-win all around.

But why does the U.S. pay? Simple. Since the U.S. supports Israel, it is obliged to support the P.A. The Palestinians will let us know when we’ve paid enough. Thanks, and keep it coming; they have Swiss accountants to feed.

Keep all this in mind should Israel attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, an event some reports have penciled in for March.

We’ve been told that Iran’s nuclear program cannot be destroyed; the enriched uranium has been dispersed and hidden in the molars of imams who sit glowering in hardened bunkers 10 miles underground, etc. Such a strike would not be like the raid on Iraq’s Osirak site, but it doesn’t have to be a knock-out punch to set the mullahs’ nuke quest back a year or two.

Israel might be excused for thinking that time is not on its side. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s president, recently declared Israel a tumor that must be removed from the region – by radiation treatment, one infers. He also suggested that the Jews be moved to Europe, and he scoffed at the Holocaust.

Some diplomats will assure Israel that Ahmadinejad is speaking metaphorically, but these are the same fools who would see the Eiffel Tower brought down by a terrorist bomb and immediately think in terms of phallic detumescence. A pity it fell on that tourist bus, but you have to admire the symbolism.

If Israel does attack Iran’s nuke plants, expect the world to pitch a fit: those uppity Jews, defending themselves again! No surprise there.

But how will President Bush react?

This could be his Tookie Williams moment. Just as the right worried that Arnold Schwarzenegger would wobble and give in to the pretty, popular kids who wanted clemency for the murderous ex-gangster, many fear Bush will issue a rote chide to placate the international community.

If his previous remarks are any guide, he knows a nuclear Iran is unacceptable – at least under current management. No one would care if Switzerland went nuclear. Belize gets the bomb? Big shrug. Iran under the mullahs? Not on Bush’s watch.

Then again, one of the arguments against Saddam was his payouts to the families of suicide bombers. This made him complicit in terrorism.

Apparently it’s OK for us to do the same, as long as we don’t actually sign the checks.