Reader beware: this got long. (One of the problems with being trained as an academic is that you sytematically marshal all of your evidence to make an argument at the expense of concision. I can't help it. I'm sorry. If you actually read all of this I appreciate your time.)

Last night before going to bed I was listening to the BBC on NPR. It was a piece on Israeli politics. I tuned in after it had begun but what I caught was quite interesting.

I am not nearly as familiar as the history and particulars of Israeli politics as is someone like Josh Marshall. Since I have a great deal of respect for his analytical capability, knowledge, and experience in political matters I'll take him at his word when he calls Benjamin Netanyahu a charlatan (which is, by the way, a fantastic word). As someone who sympathizes with the Israeli Left on matters pertaining to their conflict with the Palestinians this plays to my biases anyhow.

So then! Netanyahu's a bastard. Unfortunately he's the front runner for PM in Israel's next election. Bastard though he may be, Israel is our ally and will remain so if and when he wins. That makes him our bastard. I think we can all agree that we can't wait to work towards peace between Israel and its adversaries. Just as it is foolish to refuse to talk to our enemies in the Middle East, preferring to hold out for more amenable leadership, we'll have to work with whatever government the Israeli's elect. The question we must therefore answer is: with an Israeli government led by Likud with Netanyahu at the helm, what progress can we make - what steps can we take - towards peace?

Let me return to that BBC segment. There is a key fact (and here I am putting my faith in the BBC's veracity) about the Israeli Left and Right's histories of dealing with Palestine that I hadn't heard until last night: no leftist Israeli governing coalition has ever given up land to the Palestinians or any Arab nation, or shut down settlements in the (nominally) Palestinian territories; in contradistinction, while the Right has been in power, they have.

One could argue that the Left hasn't been able to make such concessions because as non-hardliners they don't have the political leeway to do so - they would be accused of treason. I agree with this argument but no matter the reason, this failure, as I would argue it is, remains. I see no reason to believe that conditions have changed in such a way that would allow them to take such action. Yes, the Right has have done all sorts of terrible things to Palestinians. And yes, elements of the Right have been the biggest champions of the settler movement. We can debate their motives and argue that this was not done purely in the pursuit of a lasting peace - perhaps Sharon closed the Gazan settlements and planned to eliminate many in the West Bank in order to draw back to more secure lines, to redraw them on his own terms. Such an approach would make sense for an old soldier. But giving up land and closing settlements is a big deal - I agree with Josh when he writes that there can be no peace without resolving the problem of the settlements, which means eliminating them or at least the vast majority of them. Even if this is not currently doable, we need to work towards peace now and it looks like we'll be doing it with an Israeli government led by Likud under Benjamin Netanyahu. One encouraging trait possessed by Netanyahu as described in the BBC segment was his willingness to go along with a lot of US policy positions, as being almost deferential (probably too strong a word) to our government. For one thing, he grew up here.

Can we expect him to shutter existing settlements? I doubt it, but I've been wrong before. Maybe we can at least get settlement expansion halted. It is important to remember, however, that while the issue of the settlements is perhaps the most significant obstacle to a lasting peace, it is not the only one. Let's not forget that there are other entities in conflict with Israel. The Arab states, for instance, Syria, are also of great importance.

As far as I am aware the biggest sticking point between Israel and Syria is the Golan Heights. I get the impression that control of the Golan Heights is not in the same emotional league for the Israeli people as whether they are being hit with rockets from Gaza and the settlements in Palestine. They certainly do not seem as important to their security to me. Furthermore, I would wager Netanyahu has the reputation and public persona to politically afford a withdrawal from the Golan Heights. Perhaps, with some pressure from the USA, Netanyahu would be willing to offer control of the Golan Heights to Syria and to work from that initial concession towards the same kind of peace treaty that was achieved with Egypt.

Could negotiations from this offer of concession lead to formal peace between Syria and Israel after a few years? No one knows. What we do know is that we must work towards peace starting now. I think this avenue may be the best way to begin on that path now that Bush is gone (man... my psyche hasn't adjusted yet). With the recent war in Gaza settlement elimination is probably both politically impossible for any Israeli politician and absolutely out of the question for Likud and Netanyahu. Peace between Israel and Syria would have many important benefits. Perhaps most importantly it might reassure some of the Israeli people that peace with Arabs is still possible.

I'm just an armchair diplomat. If you've made it this far, what do you think?