"Homeland Security" + "USA PATRIOT Act" = I play with G.I. Joes.
is absolutely perfect.
So, Andrew, I have to ask: what's this all about? As I said in his comments section, the necessity for a Palestinian state is justifed by hard realist politics, not the sort of mushy idealism he seems to think has been discredited by the latest suicide bombing. (Why not all the ones previous to it?) Those who advocate it advocate it as the only real long-term solution to the problem, a solution that will never come about by Israeli military force or appeals to common humanity. Whether they have a legitimate grievance and whether their tactics are right or wrong (I personally find them deeply thoughtless and counterproductive, but unsurprising all the same), the question is how to deal with the situation, and the only answer I see working is a seperate state.
(Heck, most of Isreal thinks this, and it's their asses on the line. Who are we to second-guess them?)
By the way, Andrew, you've committed a fundamental logical error: you're extending the responsibility for the actions of a subset (the bombers) to the entire set (the Palestinians). Even if the bombers deserve to be shot in the street and left to be eaten by dogs, that doesn't necessarily mean the rest of the Palestinians shouldn't get their own country, any more than a grievance with the American government's actions in Saudi Arabia justifies the attack on the WTC. (Thus I refute Chomsky.) A small minority of Israelis would like the Palestinians forcibly evicted from the territories... would you accuse the Israelis in general of this sort of belief?