[...] It is the language of war against terrorism, used for both Iraq and for the Palestinians.
But are the two conflicts the same?
"The Americans and the Iraqis don't have a dispute about land, they don't have a political dispute about sharing the same area," says Israeli defence correspondent Alex Fishman.
"In Israel, we've got an historical, cultural dispute, it's a completely different story, you can't compare it."
Common language
So if the conflicts are different, why is the language the same?
Suicide bombings have certainly contributed.
They have reinforced Ariel Sharon's view that Palestinian violence is terrorism rather than a national struggle against occupation.
And, says analyst Akiva Eldar, they have also suited his political agenda.
"The suicide bombings is something that made it even easier for Sharon to sell this equation that we and you the Americans are in the same boat," he says.
"
Because 11 September was a suicide bombing. Both in the US and in Israel it helped people to paint the conflict in black and white."
[...]
[...]Regime change
But it is more than the way the US and Israel describe their conflicts; they also talk about the same solutions.
Regime change, for instance, is viewed by many as good not only for the Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, but also for the Palestinian Leader Yasser Arafat[...]
Israeli counter terrorism expert Boaz Ganor witnessed the transition in American thinking while he was there on a lecture tour that coincided with 9/11.
"Of course I had been asked difficult questions, like how dare Israel use targeted killings, they called it assassinations," he says.
"After 9/11 this question was not asked even once.
"Because the same day of 9/11 President Bush said we are going to hunt them, and what is hunting them if not targeted killings?"
Tough image
So does this mean Israel is directly influencing Washington's strategy for its war against terrorism?
[...]
"I am sure that Bush looks at Sharon and says to himself: listen, this is a tough guy, look what he is doing there, he is succeeding, the Israelis like it, the international community is not really too upset about this," says Akiva Eldar.
Peace by force
What seems clear now is that Israel and the US increasingly have the same approach to dealing with conflict: one based on force and deterrence, rather than diplomacy and international law.
And here Akiva Eldar thinks there is a direct connection.
He says key policy advisors around George Bush do see America's battle with Iraq and Israel's battle with the Palestinians as part of the same war.
"They have actually suggested that Israel will help the United States to take over the Middle East," he says.
"They were sitting in think tanks that believed that you don't even try to appease or satisfy the Arabs, you reach peace by force which means you impose it... you don't make concessions to people you don't trust, and that puts them and Sharon in the same party."
That is a controversial view, one which few Israelis or Americans would accept.
But it is one which may be strengthened by a US strike against Iraq, at least in the eyes of Arabs and Muslims.
