The Assumption of Palestinian Moderation

My friend (and Atlantic contributor) Reuel Marc Gerecht writes to challenge a key supposition of my Times op-ed on Israel:

Jeffrey, I'm not sure I understand where a moderate Palestinian state comes from, since we would not have a "moderate" Egypt, or Syria, or probably Jordan if free votes were allowed (I assume "moderate" means willing to recognize Israel). Would a Fatah dictatorship last against Hamas if it were to gain East Jerusalem? Well, that's an interesting question. I suspect not: the opposite catalytic effect I fear is much more likely. Could Palestinian democracy change the equation? Maybe. But wouldn't it have to demonstrate to Israelis its profound seriousness before Israelis are willing to give up East Jerusalem? Isn't Israeli democracy's highly attuned sense of its primary antagonist more the issue than the intransigence of Jews in Boca, Manhattan, and Highland Park? You tell me.

I don't see how Israel gets out of the current pincer grip unless the power dynamics change in Lebanon, Iran, Gaza and the West Bank, and Egypt. Until that happens, then it's pretty hard to see things getting better. Odds are, when Iran gets the nuke, things are going to get worse. Perhaps, a lot worse. And if the fundamentalists dominate Egypt, which is only a matter of time, then I just don't see any possible progress on East Jerusalem for generations. Democracy in Egypt could surprise us in how fast it distances itself from the Muslim Brotherhood's hardcore, but even with this "progressive" evolution, the Israel-Palestinian dialogue ain't, in all probability, going anywhere.