Window on Israel: Shmucking about on the road to peace

The latest we hear is that Israel is willing to stop building settlements, stop taking Palestinian land, and will remove "illegal" settlements once negotiations begin.

Does that mean stop creating new settlements, stop adding on the fringes of existing settlements, or stop building within existing settlements? Can we assume that it does not include a promise not to build within Jerusalem, given the loud assertions of the prime minister, supported by large majorities in Israeli polls?

So far the Palestinian leadership has not backed down from the lofty position it reached as a result of earlier rhetoric by the American president and secretary of state. It is still insisting on a complete freeze, including in Jerusalem, as a condition for starting negotiations.

And that nasty problem of Gaza is still looming.

If we look at facts on the ground, the picture becomes even more complicated, in ways that defy simple portrayal.

Reliable sources indicate that Israel has slowed or stopped construction in sensitive neighborhoods of Jerusalem. The most recent flap over Gilo involves planning approvals by one level in a complex bureaucracy. In the best of circumstances, the people involved may be at least a year away from actual construction.

Are the realities - whatever they are - enough to satisfy the White House or the folks claiming to run things from Ramallah? Residents, architects and contractors can complain about delays or rejections in their applications for construction, but the Israeli politicians who are claiming to represent their people assert that there is no freeze, and American and Palestinian politicians claiming to control their realms are drawing lines that may or may not represent reality.

So who's to judge?

And so far we've been dealing only with the smallest of details, unimportant to anyone other than a few thousand residents and business people concerned about homes and profits.

Think of this as a lesson in government, taught by a retired professor of public administration. In short, obfuscation or disinformation is the language of politicians, and the bureaucracy is the government. The politicians blather on at the top, and often don't know and don't control what happens among their underlings. As John Kennedy once said, "There's always a schmuck who doesn't get the word."

The professor says: There's always more than one schmuck, they're not likely to think of themselves as schmucks, and they have their own readings of the laws, rules and their responsibilities. And, to be sure, some of them really are schmucks, i.e., either lazy, ill informed, or intent on using their bit of power to do what they want, no matter what others may say.

The lesson is relevant for officials, clerks and advisers in units dealing with local planning in Israel, policy formulations and implementation in the White House and State Department, and whoever is currently governing, or at least speaking to the media, in Ramallah and Gaza.

Somewhat more important issues, like the Iranian nuclear program and the future of millions in Iraq and Afghanistan, also depend on claims and assertions made by those who feel compelled to demonstrate their knowledge and control, when actually they are far from well informed and control almost nothing.

It should be no surprise that there are also schmucks, and other individuals convinced that they know best, at all levels of everybody's military.

Are we on the road to peace here? Stability in Iraq? Something or other in the place called Afghanistan? A solution for Iran's messianic aspirations?

Never say never, but probably not is a decent answer.