Is this a variation of the "It's only a tiny minority of extremists" argument?

Dowd displays precisely the mentality which led us to such a disaster in Iraq, namely, viewpoint that we can help a Moslem society to become democratic in our sense of the term if we only depose the dictator. He writes: "The war liberated 24 million Iraqis." Well, it "liberated" them from the dictator Hussein, but it did not liberate them from their Islamic doctrines which prevent the construction of a democratic society as we know it, that is, with the guarantees of limited government and the freedoms of the First Amendment. Yes, it was a good thing to depose Saddam Hussein and destroyed his weapons, but then we should have gotten out. We should never have attempted to "win the hearts and minds" of Iraqis -- or any other Moslems, for that matter, like in Afghanistan. It cannot be done because their hearts and minds are devoted to Allah, not to following the lead of infidels. Our failure to understand the role that the doctrines of Islam play in the hearts and minds of Moslems has cost us thousands of American lives, tens of thousands of disrupted and ruined American lives, and trillions of dollars of our wealth. It has been a disaster caused by our leaders' ignorance of Islam.

Neither Jasser not Hamid are reformers. Both of them have made their careers speaking to non-Moslems, not to Moslems, and pretending to be for reform while never criticizing the Koran or Muhammad. Both of them pretend that their non-Islamic version of Islam is viable when it is condemned by the entire Islamic religious community. Only the Islamic religious community, not publicity-seekers like Jasser and Hamid, can agitate for reform, and they are not doing it. Indeed, any reform of Islam must involve rejecting (NOT "reinterpreting"!) many passages in the Koran and the Sunna. And, that can never happen because the fundamental proposition of Islam is that the Koran is Allah's literal words, valid for all of eternity.

The author writes: "The nation of Saudi Arabia is one of the few countries in the world that doesn’t recognize the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights." Actually, ALL of the 56 Moslem-majority countries plus the Palestinian Authority subscribe to the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam which is incompatible with the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Cairo Declaration is the Moslem world's answer to the Universal Declaration because the Universal declaration enshrines equality before the law, gender equality and freedom of conscience and religion -- all of which violates sharia law. The Cairo Declaration specifically says that all human rights must be derived from and conform to Sharia law.

Thank you for your last sentence, that Erdogan opposes Israel's existence on Islamist grounds. Almost right! The word is not "islamist", but "Islamic"! "Islamist" is not separate from "Islamic". "Islamist" is part and parcel of "Islamic". All religious Moslems must oppose Israel's right to exist because the Koran commands them to make war against Jews and to subjugate them. Ultimately, that is the root of the Moslem world's refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist. It is religious all the way. That passage from the Koran, and all the other many anti-Semitic passages from the Koran are taught and preached in every mosque in the world.

Was this Obama's "bad bet" or something much more sinister?

Why is there no mention here of the most important issue, namely Islam? The doctrines of Islam are the driving force in the conflict. They are at the heart of Hamas's motivation to destroy Israel, and Abbas's PA/PLO/FATAH will never ever go against those doctrines in their struggle against Israel, even if they are not as fanatically religious. Don't forget that Abbas's PA/PLO/Fatah promote the cult of martyrdom (suicide-murder-bombers) which is strictly an Islamic religious concept.

It is impossible to remember all the names and affiliations of all these supremacist Moslems. All one need know about them is that they consider the Koran and Muhammad to be sacred.Once we know how a Moslem views the Koran and Muhammad, we know what his/her views are on Israel, Jews, Christians and non-Moslems in general. All of them are subversive supremacists, just like the Muslim Brotherhood.

Good luck in expecting non-Moslems to tell Moslems how to practice their religion!

Sure, there is lots of vagueness and confusion in many areas of Sharia, but there is also considerable clarity, too. For example, sharia law is pretty clear about severely punishing blasphemy. Sharia law is also pretty clear on the necessity Moslems to make war on non-Moslems until Islamic law rules the world because that is what Allah so clearly said in the Koran, and that is what Muhammad so clearly said in his hadiths. Islamic law is very clear that the Christian belief in the divinity of Jesus is major shirk, the only sin which Allah will never pardon. Sharia law is clear that women are inferior to men, both morally and legally, because that is what the Koran says and that is what Muhammad said.
For the sake of clarity, we need to distinguish between Islam, as a body of doctrines, and people who call themselves Muslims. There are many people who identify themselves as Muslims but who do not follow Islamic sacred law. That does not change Islamic law or the religious necessity of following it. It just says that some Moslems don't follow the laws of their religion. It was the same in Muhammad's time, as well. Even in the Koran, he had to admonish Moslems who did not want to go out and fight jihad.
It is a big mistake to misrepresent the nature of Sharia law, as you are doing here, because the ignorant non-Moslem public will get the erroneous idea that Sharia law is not so dangerous and that we can all look forward to an Islam without it. That is a vain and dangerous hope.