To Our Readers

As President-Elect Obama establishes policy priorities, he must decide when and how to engage in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There is wide agreement that our previous policies have failed, that a resolution of this conflict is critical to the future of both peoples, and that this problem is closely linked to other U.S. challenges in the region, including Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon and terrorism. 

Nevertheless, voices of caution will argue that the conflict is not “ripe” for resolution, and that failure would further weaken U.S. influence, demand excessive presidential attention, and provoke costly domestic opposition. 

As for the “ripeness” argument, dysfunctional politics in Israel and Palestine have always always stood in the way of peace. Strife in Israel between the settler and religious parties and pragmatic moderates, and in Palestine between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, will only grow worse without a credible promise of peace that could overcome these divisions. Only a U.S. initiative that goes beyond “process” and focuses on a final status agreement could offer this hope. 

The risk of failure should not discourage an early, bold U.S. initiative. The dangers of inaction for Israel and Palestine, whose futures are in doubt as the door to a two state peace is closing, and for U.S. national security, are much higher risks. And a strong presidential envoy and staff could handle the diplomatic and political process.

Finally, strong presidential leadership can prevail over domestic opposition. Polls show that Americans support a two state peace, oppose violence and settlements, and want stronger U.S. leadership. American Jews, Christians, and Arab and Muslim Americans care deeply about the Holy Land. They would welcome a strong, compassionate U.S. initiative to end the Israeli-Palestinian tragedy.