Politico reported today that Bob Wexler is resigning to take a policy position in the Obama administration. With a few minutes or research, I discovered that President Obama has yet to appoint an Ambassador to Israel. As a strong advocate for Israel and pro-peace organizations such as Seeds of Peace, he would be an ideal fit for this position. Will this happen? I think it’s likely, and worth giving up a Congressional seat for. For now, it’s just speculation.

I recently stumbled upon an article that was in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz in July discussing how, at the urging of President Obama, the Arab League is revising their peace initiative in order to alleviate Israeli concerns and increase Israeli support for the plan. Namely, if they adopt these changes, they will call for the Palestinian state created under the plan to be demilitarized and end their call for a right of return to Israel proper.

When I saw this article, I was encouraged that maybe, finally, the Arab states were looking to actually have peace with Israel. I began to think that maybe this could be the first step in a hypothetical full peace agreement between all of the Arab states (including the Palestinians) and Israel. It would be implemented, in full, in one action.

(more…)

Barack Obama should by no means become detached from foreign affairs in his early presidency — as a foreign policy-minded citizen, I think that would be a great mistake. But priority number one for Obama will and ought to be putting together a large economic stimulus package. Even if Obama focuses on outside issues, the Israeli-Palestinian issue will trail behind China, Russia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, and maybe even Somali pirates in attention.

Over at GW Discourse, I offered some comments about the recent flare-up in Gaza and Israel. Our communications director Mr. Ingoglia rightly noted that the Arab-Israeli conflict is one that our new president will inherit. Obama’s approach to the conflict is pretty much in line with past American policy, which by itself is not problematic. It would be a mistake for him to invest in trying to solve the dispute at this stage, however.

Paradoxically, outside actors (e.g., the United States) tend to hold more influence over the course of events in the Middle East when Israeli and Arab leaders are stronger. They are more able to take risks towards peacemaking instead of defaulting towards war. Any resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian question (and also the Israeli-Syrian question) necessitates strong leaders who can corral their publics into the risky art of concession. The next Israeli government (following elections in February 2009), whether it is led by Tzipi Livni or Binyamin Netanyahu, will likely not be in a very strong position to negotiate a peace. It goes without saying that the Palestinian leadership is in an even worse situation.

The best thing Obama can do now is let the Israelis and Mahmoud Abbas do what they are doing now — helping to build political infrastructure in the West Bank, such as the new Palestinian police forces in Nablus and Hebron. Gaza is a lost cause for the moment, but the West Bank has a chance to become an eventual model for its sister territory.

Obama’s appeal to unity has its limits. There is really very little he can do to change the facts on the ground in the Middle East, and he knows that. I’m pretty confident that his pledges to be ever more involved in the process of creating a Palestinian state are more wishful thinking than a pragmatic reading of the status quo. Soon he will lose interest in solving the issue, as well he should (for now).