The True Narcissists

The recent flotilla debacle off the Gaza coast has highlighted a significant issue regarding the ability of the Palestinian territories to conduct any feasible economic development.  Of course, the ability to trade freely is significantly hindered by the numerous restrictions placed around both territories by Israel.  The argument for the restrictions is that the extremist Palestinian groups will use this freedom to arm themselves freely.

This argument does hold water.  As situations in the past have shown that when violence erupts in the region neither side shy’s away from using its arms to ensure its ends.  This is furthered by the threat of Hezbollah in Lebanon; where if a rearmed Hamas coordinated a two front resistance to Israel it would be a situation fraught with consequences.  Yet, if Israel is planning on committing to the two-state solution then the expected ability of the Palestinian territories to engage in free commerce would also be expected.

The point is that Palestine will probably not be able to secure any real economic gains in the coming years as the situation continues to deteriorate.  In fact, the Palestinian economy peaked in 1999; just before the Second Intifada.  Since, the restrictions have accumulated with the election of Hamas, the war with Hezbollah, and the election of Netanyahu.  These restrictions have crippled any notion of the “market” from operating in a meaningful and legal way that could spur long term investment.

The situation is perilous for the cyclical nature of the behavior has left no room for compromise and little trust necessary for future long term development.  In the balance between Israel’s security needs and the Palestinian economy the outcome is predictable.

The point of this little post has been to ask whether the two-state solution is even possible under the current economic climate.  If any meaningful steps are to be made towards the two state solution then the economic question will have to be addressed.  If the limitations of commerce are to be lifted then Israel will need to trust that the freedom to conduct economic relations will not result in increasing the business of war-making.

In the end the two-state solution remains a pie in the sky notion for a format where concessions on grand scale may be exchanged in the hopes of relieving the stalemate of Palestinian sovereignty.  Such a measure would require the ability to gain something from both sides that is in drastically short supply: trust.

Yet, the first step towards this would be to allow the Palestinians the ability to conduct business and secure a belief in the attainment of stable economic development.  As long as this issue is tied to Israeli security the possibility of any agreement in a long shot.

Two recent articles by John Bolton and Max Boot have come to the conclusion that now would be the opportune moment for Israel to strike Iranian nuclear sites.  Essentially, Bolton states that Iran is continuing its “delay negotiations to buy time” strategy to develop nuclear weapons capability.  Further, diplomacy is a loser option that will not reverse this inevitability of a nuclear Iran.  Ok, nothing new, but what is disturbing is WHY Bolton thinks this is the best time for Israel, not the US, to strike Iran.

Bolton highlights the recent post-electoral conflicts in Iran, “makes it more likely that an effective public diplomacy campaign could be waged in the country to explain to Iranians that such an attack is directed against the regime, not against the Iranian people.”

This seems like typical Bush-era logic of the “greet us as liberators” simplicity that must be too good to be true.  How would such a campaign work?  How long would it take?  The logic is painfully light on the lynchpin of the argument: that public diplomacy would alter perceptions of Iranians to see the favorability in Jewish planes bombing their nation with near impunity.

Exactly how would this come about?  Such a campaign, which would have the people being bombed identifying and supporting those doing the bombing, is the stuff of dreams.

If John Bolton to going to make the argument that (1) the militarization of the Iranian nuclear program is simply not tolerable.  (2) That the only feasible way to prevent this is by military strike.  And (3) that the overwhelming US power makes any confrontation heavily balanced to the US’s favor.  That is a position you can get behind.  But to suggest that we can prod Israel into doing our dirty work, and then have a majority of Iranians thank us has Bolton bordering on the megalomaniacal.

Again, this is not to say that the position of military solutions to difficult foreign policy options is not valid, but that delusions of its effect on the target nation is a familiar failure for the senior members of the Bush era that has not lost its appeal.