This is a critical window of time. Donald Trump's victory gives sitting President Joe Biden an opportunity to act with more freedom than ever. He has over 70 days left in office to do what he considers important, but has so far refrained from doing. This period could be marginal if it goes unused, or highly impactful if every day in the world's most powerful office is leveraged. American presidents can generally be classified into two groups: those who do nothing remarkable between the election and the inauguration of their successor, and those who use this period to advance national interests without constantly considering voter sentiment.
In the Middle East, it was President Ronald Reagan who, immediately after the 1988 election (in which his Vice President George H.W. Bush won), instructed his Secretary of State, George Shultz, to initiate talks with representatives of the PLO in Tunisia. This decision in November, though the discussions were short-lived, marked a significant shift in US policy toward the PLO, paving the way for the Madrid and Oslo processes.
Bush himself, after losing to Bill Clinton in the 1992 election, used his "lame-duck" period in December to send American forces to Somalia as part of Operation Restore Hope. This was an unpopular move (which ultimately did not bring hope to the war-torn country) that he chose to make during those unique months.
President Bill Clinton also waited until December 2000, between George W. Bush's election and his inauguration, to present his parameters for a permanent Israeli-Palestinian agreement. The Israeli government was willing to accept these parameters with certain reservations, but the Palestinians rejected them. Although Clinton announced that he would shelve his proposal upon leaving office if either side rejected it, those parameters became the basis for both formal and informal negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians.
Biden is deeply familiar with the Middle East and the details of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He can use the upcoming days to visit the region, engage with leaders, assist in achieving calm and the release of hostages, and even offer a significant political horizon. Without such a horizon, the IDF could find itself managing Gaza for an extended period. This elderly statesman, who has declared himself a Zionist despite knowing how that resonates in the Arab world, and who is greatly troubled by the suffering experienced by civilians on both sides of the conflict, could indeed make a bold move.
Ministers under his command
The ease with which Yoav Gallant was dismissed and replaced by Israel Katz stems from a simple reason: over the past 28 years, Benjamin Netanyahu has served as Prime Minister for most of that time. At the start of his career, he was excited to be a young man in charge of senior and experienced ministers like Ariel Sharon, David Levy, and others. Over time, however, he grew disinterested in them. He concluded that as Prime Minister, he could effectively serve as Defense Minister, Finance Minister, Foreign Minister, and more.
With this mindset, he realized he could appoint people like Shlomo Karhi and David Amsalem, or even Tali Gotliv if necessary, and the sky would not fall since he, Netanyahu, oversees their ministries remotely. Thus, when he grew tired of Gallant, he felt comfortable replacing him with whomever he saw fit, as in his eyes, the true Defense Minister remains Netanyahu himself.
Don't look for a perfect fit. If Ben Gvir can serve as Minister of Police, and Smotrich as Finance Minister and half-Defense Minister, there's no reason why Katz shouldn't be appointed Defense Minister. Let the "boys" play.
We all quote Lord Acton, who will forever be remembered for his observation that power tends to corrupt. To this, we can add a severe but equally accurate statement: an overly long tenure fosters a disregard for others, and citizens bear the cost of appointing unfit individuals to critical roles. When such an appointment is made during a war for which Netanyahu is personally responsible for its prolonged duration, it is recklessness.
