While the United States under the bizarre leadership of George Bush reads a lesson in misguided arrogance to the rest of the world, the Palestinian resistance, so long ineffectual, is demonstrating another lesson: that no matter what the odds, the spirit of resistance, once alive, is not easily crushed by bullets and tanks.

Israel was the land of David. Under the weight of its armour - provided and held in place by its great provider, the United States - it has become the land of Goliath while the Palestinians find themselves in the role of David.

On the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and indeed within Israel proper received wisdom is being defied. Taking advantage of September 11, Sharon was hoping to crush the Palestinians once and for all. Had it only been up to the discredited Arafat, Sharon might well have succeeded. But the torch of resistance has passed to a newer generation - led by the likes of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Al-Aqsa Brigade, the PFLP. The more force Israel uses, the stiffer becomes Palestinian resistance. When set against the deep silence emanating from the rest of the Muslim world, this struggle looks all the more striking.

Tactics developed by Hezbollah in South Lebanon are now being tried on the Palestinian territories. Instead of targeting civilians, military targets are being hit. Just as David was not expected to hit Goliath on the forehead, the Palestinians were not supposed to hit anything as strong as an Israeli tank. But they have. They have also hit soldiers. Within Israel more and more voices are questioning the wisdom of a policy which, instead of destroying Palestinian resolve, is breeding more violence.

But Israel is yet to get the measure of what it is up against. The ultimate affliction is death. If a people, reduced to despair, overcome the fear of death, as so many Palestinians have, it is they who become invincible, not the tanks of their oppressors.

Haven't we seen the same thing happening before? In Algeria, Vietnam and a hundred other battlefields resolve (and better tactics, let us not forget) triumphed over brute force and mere firepower. Just because America possesses unparalleled technological superiority, it does not mean that the rules of human conduct stand altogether altered. What should one do in the face of oppression and injustice? Stand up to it or meekly accept it?

What drove the Palestinians to violence? The futility of trying to talk peace with the Israelis. At Oslo the Palestinians got a truncated peace. Israel has been reluctant to give them even that. By any yardstick of international law, Israeli settlements on the West Bank are illegal. Yet successive Israeli governments, ever keen to create new facts on the ground, have protected them. What should the Palestinians do?

What drove the Kashmiris to take up the gun? Not the ISI, as popular legend in India would have everyone believe, but the futility of expecting justice from India. For the Palestinians as much as for the Kashmiris, the gun was the tactic of last resort, taken up when everything else had failed.

Both Israel and India have sought to exploit September 11, the one by trying to crush the Palestinians, the other by driving Pakistan into a corner over militancy in Kashmir. The Israelis have clearly failed in their aim, the Indians have partially succeeded because a weak Pakistan, afraid of losing American favour, for all practical purposes has ditched the Kashmiri resistance.

In this turnaround, Pakistan is thrice at fault. First it tried to take over the Kashmiri jihad which it shouldn't have. Then it was guilty of mismanagement, especially in the last two years, by making a public spectacle of jihad. Iran and Syria support the Palestinian resistance. But they don't proclaim their support from the housetops. Discretion of this sort has never come easily to us. Just as we made a spectacle of our nuclear programme, proclaiming its prowess before all and sundry, we did the same with Kashmir, thus blowing our cover and exposing our involvement.

We also lacked the courage of our convictions. When the US turned the screws on us, and India started a military build-up on our borders, we panicked and cracked down on the very forces we had till then encouraged.

Caving in to American pressure was nothing new for us. We have done it all the time. Succumbing to Indian pressure in this manner was a novel experience.

Why did we do this? To what purpose or gain? The US has praised General Musharraf to the skies, as well it might because he unquestioningly accepted every demand put to him. Since American support matters in a country where begging and looking up to foreigners are the leading national pastimes, Gen Musharraf no doubt has emerged a stronger figure from these events. But what, apart from crumbs, has the country gained from this show of unblinking loyalty?

Money can compensate for a loss of dignity, at least to some extent. This is the bargain every man strikes when he enters into the service of another. But great services rendered, as done by Pakistan, in return for very little reflects smartly neither on the country nor its rulers.

Of course there is no shortage of people in Pakistan who say we had no choice but to submit because refusal would have meant diverting American wrath in our direction. For foolish fears not even Hakim Luqman had a remedy. But for argument's sake even if we accept that this threat was real, we should have looked it in the eye.

Our main problem has never been Kashmir, Afghanistan, too much religion or even a lack of money. It has been a want of spirit and national dignity. We only talk big. We have never learnt to act big. Suffering is often a great catharsis. Such is the history of the human race that only through wars and revolutions has the steel of a nation been tempered. Western civilization is as much a story of science and inventiveness as of wars of greed and conquest.

The making of America, the birth of the first nation-states in Europe, the making of Germany, the rise of Japan, all took place to the steady beat of martial drums. We are a flabby nation which has never been through much (defeat in East Pakistan having taken place at a distance). Defying America, or at least not succumbing to its threats and blackmail so readily, would have done us good.

But this is water under the bridge. Let us retrieve what we still can from our headlong retreat. Even as we adjust to the new circumstances let us honour and not revile those who were true to their beliefs and put their lives at stake for the freedom of Kashmir. They did not invent violence there. They reacted to Indian oppression. What would we have had them do? It is easy saying Kashmir runs in our blood, as most of us are wont to do. It is harder laying our lives on the line.

We are the victims of a foolish logic in Pakistan. We think that the resources spent in defence of the Kashmir cause are resources taken away from economic development. We can be at total peace with India today and yet, such has become the state of our nation, national resources will still be diverted to preserving the privileges and lifestyles of the richer classes.

Is it because of Kashmir that there is one education system for the rich and another for the poor? Is it because of Kashmir that nothing gets taught in our colleges and universities and no research is done? In Europe imperialism and the industrial revolution marched hand-in-hand. While being at war nations have not forgotten how to be inventive and resourceful at the same time. Thus has the human race advanced.

Is it because of Kashmir that the rich in Pakistan live one way and the poor another? Is our corruption and maladministration because of Kashmir? And now that we have turned the word 'jihadi' almost into a term of abuse, does it mean that all our problems will disappear and we will soon enter a brave new world?

Only a nation whose soul is tempered can reach out for the stars. Nations bent to the habits of servitude can amount to nothing even if all the world's oil wells are placed at their disposal.