The war as warm-up act for Obama

The diplomatic timing for the war looked lovely. The U.S. president who loved military action was still in power, though fading into the shadows. The new president, dynamic and popular, hadn't yet entered office. There was no one to interfere, to pressure us to stop.

We don't know if the Olmert-Livni-Barak triumvirate deliberately picked that window of opportunity. If so, it already looks like another of the war's mistakes - perhaps the only welcome miscalculation. For instead of preventing American involvement, their decision to go to war on the eve of Barack Obama's inauguration may well force him to intervene in the Israeli-Palestinian arena and push for a diplomatic solution.

In recent months, foreign-policy experts from Obama's camp have debated whether there's any point in a new peace initiative. Robert Malley, known as the most dovish veteran of Bill Clinton's peace team, has written - surprisingly - that such an effort is hopeless. In an article in the New York Review of Books (written with Hussein Agha), Malley argues that the weakness of Israel's leadership and the Palestinian political rift will prevent a two-state solution at present. Arguing the opposite, former ambassador Martin Indyk - who is likely to join the Obama administration - writes in Foreign Affairs of the "urgent need for a diplomatic effort." The Middle East can't be ignored, say Indyk and co-author Richard Haass. It will "force itself onto the U.S. president's agenda."

The Gaza War proves Indyk's thesis. After the years of neglect under Bush, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has blown up again, on Obama's doorstep. Grim photos appear in the media. Relations between Israel and Turkey, both American allies, are crumbling. While careful not to conduct foreign relations before the inauguration, Obama promised last week that his team would become "immediately engaged in the Middle East peace process." At her confirmation hearing for secretary of state, Hillary Clinton spoke of the "tragic humanitarian costs" borne by Gazans and of the incoming administration's "determination to seek a peace agreement."

Any serious American initiative requires pressure on both sides. Conventional wisdom says that a new president won't risk public confrontation with Israel - particularly not a Democrat president, who is more dependent on Jewish votes. But conventional wisdom may no longer be valid. Despite all the political right's attempts to paint Obama as anti-Israel, he received 78% of the Jewish vote. Voting Democratic is regarded as simply part of Jewish identity.

While public support for Israel continues, blind support for hawkish Israeli policies can no longer be assumed, even among Jews. J Street, the new, dovish pro-Israel lobby, exceeded expectations in raising funds for congressional candidates. Jews are among the pundits calling for a more balanced American approach. New York Times columnist Roger Cohen has written recently of feeling despondent and shamed by the war in Gaza. Matthew Yglesias, an influential young blogger, has called for public American pressure on Israel to freeze settlement. The disqualification of the Arab political parties is likely to increase the discomfort of liberal Jews. So are the prime minister's boasts of his ability to change the American vote in the Security Council, which seemingly confirm claims that Israel controls U.S. policy.

In such circumstances, Obama can reasonably hope to build political support for an assertive diplomatic initiative. Since outside pressure is necessary to disentangle Israel from the territories, this is a positive development - even if the triumvirate didn't think for a moment that it would be a consequence of the war's wonderful timing.