WASHINGTON – Out of the trauma and bloodshed of the past weeks in Gaza, Barack Obama can seize a new opportunity to push for a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians – by being a truly honest broker.
Bleak as the situation may appear, the Israeli-Palestinian problem is an area where Obama’s fresh outlook and popular appeal could make a difference early in his administration.
“I actually think that he’ll have probably the best opportunity early on to make a careful but meaningful contribution on that issue,” said Dave Pollack of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
“We can make some progress if the president gives the issue priority early in his tenure and actually gets involved himself,” said William Rugh, former ambassador to Yemen and the United Arab Emirates.
“He can’t just delegate it to other people – including the secretary of State,” he added. “This issue is going to be solved. It’s in the interest of all the parties to resolve it.”
The outlines of a deal are present, with plans on the shelf to try to bridge differences on thorny issues like settlements, boundaries, the status of Jerusalem and the right of return for Palestinians.
What Obama needs most is to signal a new level of American engagement, capitalizing on a perception in the Arab world that Obama could be an honest broker between sides despite his strong support for Israel.
Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton is expected to assert herself on the issue and jet to the region within months to take the pulse of new leadership.
Pollack said he would support a Clinton trip to the region soon, saying there are “conflicting hints” from Obama’s transition team on whether Obama should “invite some of these leaders here early in his first year rather than necessarily make the trip himself.”
“I think we’ll see trips on both sides to a much greater degree than we’ve seen recently,” said Gerald Dorfman, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.
Obama has talked about making a trip to a Muslim country early in his term, which would be an opportunity to lay out an aggressive push if he decides to take it.
The country he picks, be it Indonesia, Egypt, Turkey or someplace else, could send a signal about his priorities and whether he wants to push for a deal.
But even with a new focus, Obama will be subject to the whipsaw of events.
Israel’s upcoming election, which will feature Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, will determine the fate of any jump-started peace process.
“If Obama wants to make things happen and if he’s got especially Livni as a partner, I think things can happen,” said University of Michigan history professor Juan Cole.
“I’m not saying big things . . . [but] incremental steps can be awfully important.
“In the Middle East, there are always deals to be done, if you want to deal,” he continued.
But George Bush, like Bill Clinton before him, decided not to fully take on the issue until later in his term.
Bush’s “road map” to peace is no longer operative.
“Crises sometimes create moments where everybody sobers up and says, ‘OK, we’ve had enough,’ ” said William Quandt, who helped negotiate the start of the Camp David accords as a security aide to Jimmy Carter.
“Obama’s thought about this more than perhaps people realize,” Quandt said.
“To me, he was the only candidate in either party who understood the world and understood the proper role of the United States in the world.”
But many of the external factors that will determine whether Obama can succeed are still unclear – including how Hamas will emerge from the fighting and whether its hand is strengthened or weakened as a result.
This will determine whether Israel will get a viable negotiating partner in Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
Obama also could use the opening to try to encourage peace talks between Israel and Syria.
“An Israeli-Syrian deal is doable,” said Aaron David Miller of the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington. “It’ll take him most of his first administration, but it could be done.”
Even if he decides to prioritize the issue, Obama will be faced with a series of critical strategic questions.
Should he put all the issues on the table and push for a global settlement or start with smaller steps to build confidence?
Should he appoint a special envoy, and how much authority should he delegate?
To what extent can he rely on peace plans generated by Arab countries in the region?
And how can he find a Palestinian negotiating partner who can negotiate and deliver?
While assembling his team, Obama also must decide whether to select an envoy who will lean on Israel and push the parties hard or select a more conciliatory figure.
Obama said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week” that the players in the Middle East understand compromises must be made.
“But the politics of it are hard,” he said.
“And the reason it’s so important for the United States to be engaged and involved immediately, not waiting until the end of their term, is because working through the politics of this requires a third party that everybody has confidence wants to see a fair and just outcome.”