There's a lot of speculation about what Obama's foreign policy picks mean. But what was and remains clear to me is that Obama, like most but by no means all Democrats, believes that settling the mess of interconnected messes in the Middle East starts with a negotiated settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Progress on virtually every other front can likely only be tentative at best until that issue is resolved.

Note, for instance, that Gen. Jones, Obama's National Security Advisor (remember, he doesn't need to be confirmed) made his post-military reputation as the US envoy helping to create the beginnings of possible Israeli-Palestinian coexistence in Jenin. Brent Scowcroft, who is I believe the key force behind the retention of Bob Gates, believes as a cardinal matter that you can't really solve anything in the Middle East before you get the Israeli-Palestinian problem settled.

And yet in Israel it's not at all unlikely that by February Bibi Netanyahu could be the Prime Minister again in Israel. I guess there's always the argument that you need a Nixon to go to China, that you need someone with impeccable security credentials on the Israeli side to make a lasting peace. That's one of abiding tragedies of Ariel Sharon's stroke. (It's ironic that Netanyahu, who's got a thin national security resume by Israeli standards, should be seen in that light since verbal and policy aggression are his only real calling cards. But that's another story ...) But Netanyahu is not only the voice of Israeli territorial maximalism, albeit in its current more limited form, he's also fundamentally unreliable person -- a charlatan.

For those of us who are heartened to finally have an administration that realizes this issue is as critical as it is, it's a very disheartening prospect on the horizon.