Tuesday, it was Fouad Ajami who published an article on the Times op-ed page on where the Palestinian cause stands after Gaza. It stands nowhere, as you probably know I believe, too. But in Wednesday's Wall Street Journal, Michael Oren (the dazzling historian who's written for The New Republic frequently) published a very savvy piece more or less with the same grim assessment: In the end, there's no substantial difference between Hamas and the Fatah fighting brigades. Oh, I know that Mahmoud Abbas is a very civilized man. But he doesn't control his troops. Oren proposed an idea that goes back to the Begin-Sadat peace agreement 30 years ago, which proposed that the Palestinians be given autonomy rather than independence. At least for some time. I am actually not sure that they are ready even for this truncated form of self-determination. But, as Oren suggests, the kingdom of Jordan should take over the security aspects of Palestine autonomy in some substantial relationship to Israel. The fact is that Jordan can't be left out of any deal over the West Bank. It is too enmeshed in the entire question of Palestine and the Palestinians. It has dealt quite fairly--fairly is a relative term in the Arab world--with the Palestinians who live and are citizens of the country. It has excellent--also a relative term in the Arab world--concrete ties with Israel. Only the Jordanians will be able to wrest Palestine from Israel on terms satisfactory to all three.