We say: This argument is based on flawed logic, both because it ignores the price that Israel is paying for its continued occupation of the West Bank and because it dismisses the viability of any other security arrangements.

Israel is paying dearly for maintaining military control of the West Bank. The toll is political, economic and moral. The perpetuation of military occupation has a negative impact on army morale and on the health of Israeli society. It leaves Israel unprepared to handle other security threats, as was exposed in the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war. It is vital that Israel seek to end the occupation of the West Bank as part of a diplomatic process that incorporates security arrangements to minimize potential threats to Israel.

In recent years, the Bush Administration has supported efforts to revamp the PA's security forces. Recent news reports indicate that this program is starting to show results, with PA forces effectively establishing law and order - and taking action against Hamas-allied bodies - in several Palestinian cities. Indeed, in early September 2008, senior IDF officers, quoted by Haaretz, expressed satisfaction with what was characterized as a "marked improvement" in the Palestinian Authority's efforts against West Bank militants.

Nevertheless, the Palestinian Authority and Fatah are undoubtedly weak, both in terms of political support and in terms of military capacity.

There are a number of reasons why Fatah is politically weak. These include a history of corruption and the failure of Fatah's leaders to meaningfully improve the lives of Palestinians through negotiations with Israel. After all, for twenty years Fatah has promoted itself as the party that seeks a two-state solution through negotiations.

Militarily, it bears mention that Israel has limited the Palestinian Authority's capacity to defend itself against Hamas' militia both by targeting PA assets for attack and by limiting the ability of the PA to receive weapons and equipment, as well as reinforcements.

Israel should pursue a strategy that employs genuine diplomacy and a smart military posture. APN is not calling for Israel to pick up and leave the West Bank unilaterally or overnight. Indeed, we were highly critical of the way the IDF left Gaza, and warned at the time that the unilateral withdrawal would play into the hands of Hamas.

An Israeli withdrawal should be part of a process of negotiations with the PA's leadership, negotiations that can provide credibility for moderate leaders, thereby strengthening them and enhancing their ability to govern after an Israeli withdrawal. In the interim before such a withdrawal, Israel also needs to reconsider policies that restrict Palestinian freedom of movement within the West Bank. The security benefits of separating Palestinian towns from each other is questionable, and it is clear that such policies hamper efforts to rebuild the Palestinian economy and create hardships which may fuel the radicalization of the population in the West Bank.

The status-quo in the West Bank is destructive. It poses a creeping existential threat to Israel. Ending the occupation in the context of a two-state solution must be the ultimate, overarching Israeli national security goal vis-...-vis the West Bank. Those who argue for a perpetual occupation due so at Israel's peril.