A Kotzker President

This war should be called the Tisha B’Av war. The IDF is having big problems, and before long there will be recriminations. If there is not enough of a victory to justify all the pain, the Olmert government should fall, which would be the least of Israel’s problems. A failure to achieve a decisive victory will embolden Israel’s enemies, and be one more indication to radical Islam that the tide has turned in their favor. Hezbollah and Iran will grow in stature at the expense of the Sunni governments and al Qaeda. At this point, Israel’s deterrence depends to a large extent on a firm reigning in and disarming of Hezbollah, pushing them back far enough so that no rockets will fall on Israel.

The issues that are already being raised is, first and foremost, that Israel did not think through the consequences. The decision to attack was made without sufficient internal Israeli consultations, and without adequate contingency plans. If the idea was to bring back the soldiers, we could have found other ways to achieve the goal. Even Hezbollah and Iran were surprised, having thought that a kidnapping or two were within the rules of engagement. In addition, the IDF misjudged the strength of the enemy. I have little doubt that in time the chief of staff and the other top brass who advised the government will bear some of the blame. What other conclusion can one draw? The U.S. and everyone else believed the IDF had this war all figured out. It seemed plausible to say an army as powerful as Israel’s would decimate an opponent no larger than a brigade. Even without a cease fire, l am confident the IDF will prevail, but apparently it will be a difficult battle.

The world already is voicing other criticisms. The Arabs, the EU, the U.N., the political left will deplore the ferocity of the attack on the non-Hezbollah parts of Lebanon. Israel is using excessive force without distinguishing between the civilian population and the enemy. The sole purpose of the destruction is to force the Lebanese government to enter the area and disarm Hezbollah. The problem is the Lebanese army is 30% Shiite, a quarter of the government is still in Syria’s pocket, and the government is so delicately balanced, it is effectively paralyzed. If Hezbollah is not defeated, such large scale destruction will be seen as having achieved nothing. In order to justify what has been done so far, and in order to maintain a future deterrence, Israel has little choice but to continue fighting. It is a downward spiral, and an unhappy situation.

A possible alternative to the fighting is vigorous negations to achieve the same goals by diplomatic means. In my opinion, the Bush administration is way too rigid on how a meaningful cease fire can be brokered. Maureen Dowd ,the day before yesterday in the NY Times, hit it on the head. “What‘s so frustrating about watching him (Bush) deal with Iraq or Lebanon, there’s almost nothing to watch. It’s not like watching paint dry, since that too is a passage from one state to another. It’s like watching dry paint.” If they want a deal, at this point, I think they must pay up. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, not a messenger and not a third party, must go to Damascus and make Assad a genuine offer. Saying in her supercilious way, "He knows what he must do, and we expect him to do it’’ is way too arrogant a way to talk to someone who has a very strong hand, and can be of major help both in Lebanon and in Iraq. Rigid is a mild word for the Bush strategy. Dowd again, “The more people tell him that this is a region of shifting alliances and interests, the less he seems inclined to develop an adroit policy to win people over to our side rather than try to annihilate them.”

There are currently, in the Middle East imbroglio 19 players: Israel, Hezbollah, the non Hezbollah Lebanese Shiites, the Lebanese government, Syria, Iran, Russia, China (because of its support of Iran), Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the U.S., the E.U., the U.N., the Iraqi insurgents, the Iraqi government, the Iraqi Shia, the Arab and Muslim street, the American street (public), and the EU street. Each have a half a dozen uncertainties associated with how they are going to act under different contingencies. President Bush in a recent press conference said “That’s what leaders do. They see problems, they address problems, and they lay out a plan to solve the problems.’’ He certainly does get the general idea.

In Kotzk (a Chasidic group in Congress Poland) they used to say “oyb men kenisht ariber, miz men ariber”. A rough but inadequate translation might be, "If faced with an insurmountable obstacle, surmount it.” Bush is a Kotzker if I ever saw one. One last time Dowd," W prides himself on his changelessness and regards his immutability as the surest sign of virtue. Facing a map on fire he sees any inkling of change as the slippery slope to failure.”

What America and even Israel need is a Galitzianer (the south Polish province Galicia that was part of the Austrian Hungarian Empire), or Ungarisher (Hungarian) foreign policy dressed in the appropriate Germanic (Yekkish) gravitas, a Henry Kissinger style of realism. In Galitzia they used to say “Oib men kenisht ariber, git men zich aan eitzah.” In an even freer translation this means “If faced with an insurmountable obstacle, go around it.” We need a foreign policy team that can whistle Dixie and chew gum at the same time.