Gaza

Given the current vacuum in US leadership, and the seeming absence of any concerted US effort to stop it, I think the situation in Gaza will boil over very soon and Israel will undertake a major military assault against Hamas, with all that that entails. I'm thinking days or perhaps weeks, no more. Very soon, Israel will once again be at war.

All of the Israeli politicians' rhetoric, with an election looming in early Feb., seems to have coalesced around the need to invade Gaza and attempt to topple Hamas. Soon enough, one of Hamas' rockets will eventually cause some Israeli casualties, and that will be the excuse Israel is waiting for to invade, I think.

Some of the key questions to consider include:

• What happens next if we play out this scenario? How will Hamas respond? Will Hamas kill Gilead Shalit?
• What are Israel's objectives---and realistic options---given a military invasion?
• What will Hezbollah and/or Iran do if Israel invades? How about the Egyptians? The Syrians? The Saudis? The so-called "Arab Street?"
• How about the Palestinians on the West Bank? Will they sit idly by as their brethren in Gaza are attacked?
• What effect, if any, will the fighting have on world oil prices?
• What sorts of intense pressure will be brought to bear upon Israel---by the US, the EU, and Russia---to stop the fighting? And how will Israel respond to this pressure?

It seems a pipe dream that Israel will be able to destroy Hamas, since it enjoys so much support in Gaza and we know how little regard the residents of Gaza have for Abbas and Fatah. Hamas may go underground, but certainly not go away. Therefore, many of them will live to fight another day.

Israel will undoubtedly need to reoccupy at least portions of Gaza, if not most or all of the Strip, if they have any hope of limiting the rocket fire on their southern towns. But we already know that's an untenable situation long-term. So, realistically, what does Israel DO after it "reconquers" Gaza? I hope Israel doesn't make the same mistake the Bush administration did in Iraq, namely, invade without giving sufficient thought and planning to what happens next.

The invasion and "reconquering" of Gaza will be the straightforward part (I certainly won't say "easy" and there will be many casualties). But what happens after that is really the rub. Israel has no good options at all---none---so it will be forced to select from a number of very unappealing options, none of which will "solve" the Gaza problem for any length of time at all.

Therefore, in my opinion, at best a military invasion of Gaza will help reduce the rocket fire for some indeterminate period of time, but not eliminate the problem. Still, given the current unacceptable situation, I think Israel has been boxed into a corner and doesn't have any other choice but to go down this path and hope for the best.

On Obama's upcoming push for Middle East peace

Several people have asked me recently for my thoughts about President-elect Obama's apparent intention to focus intense efforts on concluding an Arab-Israeli peace agreement in his first year in office. The consensus among the chattering classes seems to be that Obama will publicly embrace the Saudi peace plan and strive to use it as the basis for structuring an agreement. What is one to make of all of this?

I believe that the proposed Saudi plan is an excellent place to start Middle East peace discussions, primarily because it's the only plan out there that involves a peace agreement with the entire Arab world in one fell swoop, vice country by country agreements. Addressing the Arab world's concerns as a "community," and depending upon the wealthier, more powerful Arab countries to underwrite and support such a comprehensive, community-wide approach is the right way to go, in my opinion; perhaps, even, the only way to go.

With regards to the geographic elements of the Saudi plan, I am in favor of Israel giving up most of the West Bank, save for the existing large "settlement blocs," to a nascent Palestinian state. I also favor giving up East Jerusalem to be its capital, and of returning the Golan to Syria. Israel doesn't need these territories and their continued control of them is not at all viable long-term, in my opinion. In fact, as the past 30 years have shown, it is extremely detrimental to Israel's interests.

One of the biggest non-geographic stumbling blocks to Obama forging such an agreement is, of course, settling the so-called refugee problem. One of Israel's suggested proposals is to offer compensation only in exchange for calling an end to all alleged refugee claims, since offering to allow more than a token number of Palestinians to resettle in Israel would be tantamount to national suicide. If the Arabs will indeed settle the refugee problem just for cash, then a comprehensive agreement may be possible.

Perhaps my biggest concern however, with the talk of Obama trying to drive home an agreement in his first year in office has to do with the US tendencies to want to conclude an agreement quickly and paper over many of the critical details in an effort to achieve speed. The speed with which such an agreement is conducted, in my opinion, is inversely proportional to its chance of durability. Each issue needs to be dealt with carefully, in detail, and in all its complexities and nuances. Speed is the enemy of long-term success in this situation.

I also know that I am not alone in worrying that in a rush to complete an agreement, whether based on the Saudi plan or some other similar framework, insufficient attention will be paid to serious, enforceable security guarantees for Israel that the additional territories from which it withdraws will not become launching pads for terrorist attacks as Gaza is today and as Southern Lebanon has been with Hezbollah. Nor that those territories will be allowed to become suffciently armed or militarized (beyond the local needs for police) that they could pose a threat to Israel should they decide at some later date to attack her in a coordinated fashion.

We are all well aware of Arafat's and Abbas' oft-stated strategy to conquer Israel in stages, even if it takes multiple generations. Getting Israel to withdraw from the territories and East Jerusalem is just one stage in their overall plan; signing a piece of paper isn't going to make their dream go away. We know from very painful experience that they cannot be trusted to honor any agreement they sign.

We also need to remember that Israel acquiesed to intense American pressure after the 2006 war to "trust" Security Council Resolution 1701 and the UN monitoring activities that Hezbollah would not be allowed to rearm. And we all know what a cruel joke that turned out to be in a matter of months after the conflict ended. Why should Israel believe that it will be any different this time?

Clinton's rush to complete an agreement prior to the end of his administration did not take enough account of the need for serious security guarantees for Israel; he brushed them aside as "unnecessary" since there would be a "peace agreement." Yeah, right----that "agreement" would have been just a piece of paper. What would have us believe that Arafat and Abbas would suddenly have honored this agreement when they violated every other one they signed?

Secretary Rice's current rush to complete an agreement prior to the end of President Bush's administration also lacks sufficient attention to this issue, which is why almost the entire Israeli defense establishment keeps cautioning PM Olmert repeatedly not to fall into the trap of rushing into an agreement before he leaves office. America has a history of wanting to force an agreement, for its own well-intentioned reasons, but which in time will leave Israel vulnerable. We as a country tend to trust that others will honor their agreements as we try to honor ours; but that is not the mindset of the enemies we are facing.

Israel, in my opinion, would be foolish to sign any agreement that did not contain real and enforceable security guarantees---not guaranteed by UN observers, not guaranteed by the Europeans, but guaranteed by the US. The US military is the only force that could legitimately police such an agreement---but that would involve a commitment of a significant number of US troops for an extended period of time (perhaps not as many as in Korea, but something along those lines). And that is going to be a very, very difficult position for Obama to take given where America is today and his orientation.

This is fundamentally what worries me about Obama's intended aggressive push on this issue. I worry that he, too, will try to rush an agreement through for his own reasons and not pay sufficient attention to the iron-clad guarantees that I believe Israel needs in order to withdraw from all the territories. He'll want to go for it, he'll want to make history, he'll want to go down in history as a peacemaker (all the same personal goals that Clinton, Bush and Rice had), and if Israel's long-term security is put somewhat at risk in the process, well that's just the price that has to be paid. I believe that is a prescription for utter failure and a dire threat to Israel's long-term survival.

Head vs. Gut, or IQ vs. EQ

After following the Democratic and Republican presidential campaigns closely for many months now, particularly the responses to the two vice-presidential nominations, it seems that the Democrats have once again opted for the "Head" or "IQ" strategy and the Republicans, once again, have opted for the "Gut" or "EQ" strategy.

True to form, the Democrats nominated an exceptionally intelligent candidate--erudite, very well-educated, but more than a little arrogant--as they have in the recent elections. The Republicans, also true to form, nominated a candidate of average intelligence who comes across as "Joe Everyman." Sen. Obama clearly has the far higher IQ, while Sen. McCain has a much stronger EQ. Obama is who you would want as your teacher; McCain is who you'd want to invite over for dinner. Sound familiar?

The same pattern was also repeated in their vice-presidential elections. Sen. Biden is the smarter, more experienced candidate, but is very arrogant and has trouble "connecting" with people. Gov. Palin, on the other hand, is certainly not the sharpest knife in the drawer, barely got through her college education, yet her personality is magnetic and she easily connects with people and can excite a crowd in a way that Biden could never even dream of doing.

I could go on and on with the comparisons, but I'm sure you get the point.

The problem for the Democrats is that most Americans use their gut to decide for whom to vote, not their head. For most Americans it is an instinctual choice, not a rational choice, and one driven largely by emotion and comfort-level. In that way, it is analogous to how most people choose whom to marry: not rationally, not carefully weighing the pros and cons, but based on what their gut tells them. Marketers have known this truth for a long time--most "big" decisions are far more emotional than intellectual. Think houses, cars, colleges, etc.

In 2000 and again in 2004, Bush was the candidate people wanted to have a beer with, the candidate with whom they felt comfortable because he was "one of us." Gore and Kerry were clearly the intellectual superiors, but who came across as arrogant and condescending; sophisticated, to be sure, but not "like the rest of us." Gore and Kerry appealed to the country's educated elites, and Bush connected with people in the rest of the country.

The same pattern is repeating itself in this election. Obama made the "smart" choice in selecting Biden who nicely compensates for Obama's lack of experience in foreign affairs. It was the wise, carefully considered selection. McCain, on the other hand, made the "emotional" choice, choosing Palin after having only met her once, but clearly someone with whom large swaths of the country can easily relate.

This election is once again "Head" vs. "Gut;" the "IQ" strategy vs. the "EQ" strategy. We'll know soon enough which strategy will triumph this time.

Introduction

Welcome to my first attempt at a blog. I've read many others--some consistently for several years now--and have great admiration for those who stick to it and do it regularly. Solely for lack of time, I've always hesitated to jump into the fray until now. So here goes...and I hope any readers out there will find the posts to be interesting, provocative and worth your time. I welcome any and all comments and suggestions.