'I am very proud ... Allahu Akbar'

Fatma Omar an-Najar was a 64-year-old mother of nine and grandmother of 41 from the Gaza Strip who blew herself up at an Israeli checkpoint a week ago. To people who saw the headline the shocking thing was her age; to those who read the story the shocking thing was her family's reaction. "I am very proud of what she did. Allahu Akbar!" said her son Fuad. Another two children said they suggested suicide and helped an-Najar prepare for self-immolation. Protestations of pride are commonplace in Palestinian families post-bombing, but assistance beforehand usually isn't.

Shortly after an-Najar threw her life away to little effect, yet another "ceasefire" was agreed to. But when is a ceasefire not a ceasefire? When only one side ceases fire. As usual, unfortunately, what was trumpeted on Friday was in tatters by Sunday when the shelling of Israel continued unabated. The good cop/bad cop routine where the "governing" faction agrees to stop fighting while Islamic jihad keeps shooting was back at square one.

An-Najar's story and the ceasefire-that-wasn't is why I have no faith in the peace process. Many Palestinians suffer from a cultural psychosis that celebrates martyrdom and murder. While all societies honor their war dead, almost no culture gives more respect to suicides than to surviving veterans. The point of rational war isn't to seek death but to gain something. The traditional calculus of negotiation the peace process is based upon is irrelevant when one side believes in a "death cult" where self-destruction is the end goal.

A lasting settlement to international disputes can occur after one of two conditions is met. The first of these is total victory; one side is decisively defeated, and the victors impose their will. The other possibility is an acceptance by all sides that the cost of achieving success is too high. This was the case in Europe after the Congress of Vienna, when the balance of power persuaded the major powers to avoid warfare. But if neither side feels defeated, and both think military might can achieve their objectives, peace will be transitory.

Except for the Yom Kippur War, every Arab-Israeli War led to another war and another truce. The underlying issues motivating conflict — the existence of Israel as a sovereign Jewish state — remained unresolved, so strife continued. After being defeated in 1973, Egypt determined that even if everything aligned perfectly — strategic and tactical surprise, advanced weaponry, etc. — Israel would still survive. Therefore peace was the only realistic option.

Contrast that with the current situation in Lebanon. Israel is sure that if it had done things differently it would have totally smashed Hezbollah, while Hezbollah believes that the United Nations will ride to the rescue if things go awry. The U.N. ceasefire will be short-lived because neither combatant believes its objectives unattainable by force. Immediate ceasefires prevent outcomes other than draws, ensuring a future resumption of fighting.

So the next time someone calls for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, I'd ask them the following: In what way would American withdrawal solve sectarian tensions, deter Iranian ambitions in southern Iraq or affect the Islamic imperialism of Osama bin Laden and his cohorts — the underlying issues in the war? Also consider a rapidly expanding Associated Press scandal that has yet to gain widespread exposure: At least a half dozen horrific reports of sectarian violence, including front page stories about worshippers burned alive last week, were invented by a couple Iraqi stringers with ties to the insurgency and relayed without question by the press. Think about that the next time you hear how bad Iraq is.

Let's go back to an-Najar and her kin for a moment. The problem in her example is how to defeat an enemy which seeks its own death, such as suicide terrorists of Hamas, Hezbollah, the Mahdi Army or al-Qaeda. We have three options: Preemptively kill suicide bombers, destroy the infrastructure that supports them or convince their leaders that terrorism is ineffective.

Despite the efforts of units like the 1st Brigade Combat Team, which since arriving in Ramadi in June has inflicted casualties at a stunning 75:1 rate, we're never going to annihilate the nihilists. That means convincing our enemies that terrorism isn't viable. If we withdraw from Iraq, we send the opposite message. If we won't draw a line in the sand here and now, when and where will we say "enough" and stand and fight? If we accept defeat in Iraq, what won't we retreat from? Barry Caro is a sophomore from White Plains, N.Y. He can be reached at bcaro@princeton.edu.