Responding to a Reader's Misconceptions

In response to my post last week about a 'really regional plan,' one reader responded with several common misconceptions and encouraged me to respond. So here are my brief reactions:

The "timing of the Gaza operations was extremely political (electoral)."

I don't know why the reader should make that argument, because as a consequence of the Gaza war, both Kadima and especially Labor confronted disappointing results in the election campaign.

On a deeper level, the recent Gaza war was an attempt to push through to a 2-state solution; The primary obstacle to 2-state is Hamas. And if Hamas is gone the "Peace Process" can continue.

It is odd to think that the war was intended to push through a two-state solution since there was never much of a chance that Hamas would be destroyed. Yes, with Hamas gone, hypothetically the Palestinian Authority could have re-taken Gaza and serious negotiations would have been easier to resume.  But now negotiations seem more difficult than ever. The war was actually a reaction to popular will, given the intensification of missile attacks on southern Israel originating in Gaza. It was certainly not a campaign ploy.  Defense Minister Ehud Barak, whose party lost several seats, likely from the war, repeatedly expressed his reluctance to enter Gaza.

The 2-state solution could be a spectacular failure. Not the end of conflict but the beginning. The new state could be taken over by something like Hamas or by Syria. It will have better weapons than the Palestinians do now. A West Bank Palestinian State could penetrate or attack Jordon. Arms could flow in by air and sea and volunteers through Iraq and Jordon. War could break out and tens of thousands could die. Nuclear weapons could be available to a highly radicalized Palestine.

These worst-case scenarios are based on an Israeli government being completely nonexistent while all of this was happening. The reader is assuming that demilitarization of the Palestinian state would not occur or that massive violations would evolve with Israel paying no attention. The reader also seems to presuppose that after a Palestinian state was established, the Israeli government would be stupid, incompetent, or totally unresponsive to the country's national interests. Instead, even if a Palestinian state were to be recognized, Israel would be highly involved in its affairs given the critical Israeli security needs that would require such engagement. For example, Israel would have to be very sensitive to the possibility of any kind of missile attacks from the West Bank given the proximity to Ben Gurion Airport.

"the overworked and understaffed Obama administration is being examined for its focus on the financial crisis, not the Middle East. So I don't expect Presidential focus on the Arab-Israeli dispute until Obama's second term. Anyway, it takes either 7 years or a major blow-up to educate an American President on the Middle East. Clinton took about 7 years and Bush 43 had 9/11. Bush 41 waited until the invasion of Kuwait. For Obama, it will be a 7-year wait or the testing of an Iranian nuclear device. Hopefully just a test, in the Iranian desert."

The reader forgets that the first Bush administration was intensely involved in trying to do something about the Arab-Israeli dispute long before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. And the Clinton administration was thoroughly engaged long before Camp David in 2000.  Even Bush 43 had the announcement of support for the two state solution, the roadmap, and support for Israeli withdrawal from Gaza before the Annapolis process.  They may each have had failures aplenty, but they did have "focus". 

But Obama has expressed his interest early.  The reader is assuming that despite its early appointment of Senator Mitchell, the Obama administration will completely ignore its commitment to dealing in some manner, shape, or form with the Arab-Israeli dispute.  He pretends that both envoy Mitchell and Secretary of State Clinton as well as their aides and supporters would completely ignore a major trouble spot in the region when all of the administration's statements and actions indicate the exact opposite.

Finally, the reader questions me:

Your idea that the Bibi administration is "a nightmare right-wing government" that will please Ali Khamani seems unsupported. Care to explain?

Even Netanyahu himself seems reluctant to go through with his 61-seat right-wing coalition in which any act by his government is likely to receive opposition from among some or all of the parties in his coalition or by the international community, including the United States.

Meanwhile, his foreign minister will likely be Avigdor Lieberman who would be a pariah to many governments with which he would have to deal. We know from a similar government under Prime Minister-designate Netanyahu from 1996-1999 that, as he struggled to please the international community and his own coalition, he found himself making international concessions that alienated his coalition and then trying to assuage them with actions that alienated the international community.  Finally, his coalition collapsed after the 1998 Wye accords.

Even if the international community did not pressure this kind of a government, certainly the Israeli people would quickly become frustrated by its twists and turns and lack of achievement. There are few Israelis who disagree with this point.

Most individuals who care about Israel will be horrified by the kind of government that appears to have a good possibility of being established. Only Israel's enemies are likely to be pleased, because Israel will be an isolated and ineffective government internationally, and an exceptionally divided state domestically under this kind of coalition. Certainly the Israeli people will not be satisfied, and the members of the government will themselves be continually frustrated. If the Prime Minister-designate creates this kind of tenuous coalition, it will only be out of desperation, and he himself knows that he is likely to fail.  Most of those who genuinely care about Israel would not be pleased with this kind of situation.  The reader is simply wrong in his statements and inferences.