The political paradox of the Gaza attacks
Consider this an open thread on the Israeli attacks on Hamas in Gaza. One piece of this analysis by Ethan Bronner in the New York Times struck me as symbolizing the political difficulties of achieving any kind of negotiated settlement in the region: It was Ehud Barak, the defense minister, who directed the preparations, and ...
Consider this an open thread on the Israeli attacks on Hamas in Gaza. One piece of this analysis by Ethan Bronner in the New York Times struck me as symbolizing the political difficulties of achieving any kind of negotiated settlement in the region: It was Ehud Barak, the defense minister, who directed the preparations, and politically it is Mr. Barak who stands to gain or lose most. As chairman of the Labor Party, he is running for prime minister in the February elections and polls show him to be a distant third to the Likud leader, Benjamin Netanyahu, and the Kadima leader, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni. But if Hamas is driven to a kind of cease-fire and towns in Israel’s south no longer live in fear of constant rocket fire, he will certainly be seen as the kind of leader this country needs. If, on the other hand, the operation takes a disastrous turn or leads to a regional conflagration, his political future seems bleak and he will have given Hamas the kind of prestige it has long sought. So, let me get this staight: The odds of Israel being a flexible negotiating partner would be highest if Barak was PM; Barak's chances of being PM ride on the success of the offensive against Hamas; If the attack fails -- which suggests that a there is no military solution to Gaza -- then the person most open to non-military solutions will be eliminated from serious contention in Israeli politics. Am I missing anything? UPDATE: The Guardian's Rory McCarthy has a good roundup of Israeli opinions -- I tend to side with those who believe that there is no military solution to this problem. ANOTHER UPDATE: Shadi Hamid has a good post on what Hamas was thinking.
Consider this an open thread on the Israeli attacks on Hamas in Gaza. One piece of this analysis by Ethan Bronner in the New York Times struck me as symbolizing the political difficulties of achieving any kind of negotiated settlement in the region:
It was Ehud Barak, the defense minister, who directed the preparations, and politically it is Mr. Barak who stands to gain or lose most. As chairman of the Labor Party, he is running for prime minister in the February elections and polls show him to be a distant third to the Likud leader, Benjamin Netanyahu, and the Kadima leader, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni. But if Hamas is driven to a kind of cease-fire and towns in Israel’s south no longer live in fear of constant rocket fire, he will certainly be seen as the kind of leader this country needs. If, on the other hand, the operation takes a disastrous turn or leads to a regional conflagration, his political future seems bleak and he will have given Hamas the kind of prestige it has long sought.
So, let me get this staight:
- The odds of Israel being a flexible negotiating partner would be highest if Barak was PM;
- Barak’s chances of being PM ride on the success of the offensive against Hamas;
- If the attack fails — which suggests that a there is no military solution to Gaza — then the person most open to non-military solutions will be eliminated from serious contention in Israeli politics.
Am I missing anything? UPDATE: The Guardian‘s Rory McCarthy has a good roundup of Israeli opinions — I tend to side with those who believe that there is no military solution to this problem. ANOTHER UPDATE: Shadi Hamid has a good post on what Hamas was thinking.
Daniel W. Drezner is a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and co-host of the Space the Nation podcast. Twitter: @dandrezner
More from Foreign Policy

Saudi-Iranian Détente Is a Wake-Up Call for America
The peace plan is a big deal—and it’s no accident that China brokered it.

The U.S.-Israel Relationship No Longer Makes Sense
If Israel and its supporters want the country to continue receiving U.S. largesse, they will need to come up with a new narrative.

Putin Is Trapped in the Sunk-Cost Fallacy of War
Moscow is grasping for meaning in a meaningless invasion.

How China’s Saudi-Iran Deal Can Serve U.S. Interests
And why there’s less to Beijing’s diplomatic breakthrough than meets the eye.