Israeli prime minister has agreed to the creation of a Palestinian state. But he has warned that it must be a demilitarised state. President Obama has eulogised the statement as a step forward. Let the president himself be warned that the statement is not at all a step forward. It is miles and miles and miles a step backwards. The Palestinians have dustbinned the statement as a vulgar insult. What the prime minister has actually declared is that Palestinians do have a right to have a country of their own. But they don't have a right to defend it themselves. The country's survival must be Israel's monopoly. The prime minister has created a stunningly new concept of a state. If a Palestinian state of the prime minister's specification was established, it would be a dancing hall for the aged Israelis. The prime minister richly deserves a Noble prize for his brand-new idea of a state. The Palestinians have been fighting a war of liberation with stones and bricks. Israel can demilitarise a Palestinian state. But it cannot strip the Palestinians of their stones and bricks. Even in a demilitarised Palestine, stones and bricks would remain at the Palestinians' command. But Israel need not be dismayed. Here is a remedy. Before granting independence to the Palestinians, Israel must chop off the hands of every physically fit Palestinian. A universal chopping would completely demilitarise the country. The handless Palestinian would neither be able to use the conventional military weapons nor their stones and bricks. Israel could proudly ask the world: "Has ever a country been thus demilitarised in human history? If you want to completely destroy your enemy, don't use weapons. Just strip him of his hands." President Obama has asked Israel to stop building settlements in Palestine. Israel is laughing. Obama's asking and Israel's laughing are pure political gimmicks. If America is really anti-settlements, it can command Israel to stop the nonsense immediately. It need not ask. When it asks, the Palestinians smell something horribly conspiratorial. Israel's very existence is an American charity. America keeps pouring dollars and extremely sophisticated military weapons into Israel as charity. It is on the strength of this charity that Israel is pouring destruction on the Palestinians. Is if Israel wants a demilitarised Palestine, obviously there are certain political reasons for it. But there is also an economic reason. Israel can use a demilitarised Palestine as a backyard. And it can use this backyard for growing fruits and vegetables. Thus Israel would gradually get back the price of the bombs which it has so far rained on the Palestinians. The settlement which Israel is building inside Palestine are not settlement for Israeli civilians. They are meant to serve as Israel's outposts inside Palestine. The posts would enable Israel to watch from a very close range the undesirable activities of the Palestinians. Could a demilitarised 'state' with foreign outposts inside its territory be called a 'state'? Never Unfortunately there is no word for it in the available political vocabulary. A word would have to be created. Let's call such a state an Israelcracy. The Nazis treated the Jews brutally. Naturally, the Jews wanted to have revenge. But they did not have the means. Destiny's heart melted. It created a Jewish State. Now the Jews had the means. But unfortunately, the Nazis had melted into oblivion. The Jews consoled themselves: "If the Nazis are not available doesn't matter. Revenge we must have. What about the Palestinians as a substitute? If the killer cannot be killed, kill anyone else as an alternative. Hurrah" Israel started brutalising the Palestinians. The Palestinians lamented: "Had there been no Nazis, there would have been no anti-Jewish holocaust. And there been no anti-Jewish holocaust, there would have been no anti-Palestinian holocaust. Actually, it is the Nazis who are the real creators of all our woes." The Palestinian leadership has asked President Obama to establish a Palestinian State in two years. The president hasn't reacted. Probably, he is hard of hearing. The Palestinians have been living as Israel's slaves for numerous decades. By now they ought to have become inured to slavery. But no They seem to have been manufactured of a very tough material. They have been relentlessly shedding their blood for freedom. Their blood-shedding has so far failed to touch Obama's blood. President Bush loved slavery. He admired Israel for keeping the Palestinians in chains. Abraham Lincoln's soul must have looked ferociously at Bush. But would Obama be a different story? Let's wait and see. D.H. Lawrence says: "Blood never lies." Let's see if Obama's blood proves itself to be different from Bush's blood. The writer is an academic