(2 of 2)
It is great fun to watch the interplay between the diffident Scowcroft and the fiery Brzezinski, both of whom insist they are idealistic realists. In an example that has immediate relevance, both stand their ground in favor of a more balanced policy in the Middle East — balance is a loaded word, a euphemism, neocons complain, for making demands on Israel. Scowcroft says we have a "natural" — not a "special" — relationship with Israel, a "small, courageous democracy in a hostile land," but also an "equal commitment" to ease Palestinian suffering. Both sides need a "heavier hand by the United States than we have traditionally practiced."
In other words, Scowcroft favors a subtle but significant change from the Bush 43 policies of talking a nice game about a two-state solution but never doing much about it — and of actively supporting disproportionate Israeli responses to Arab outrages. There would be a constant process of negotiation, in the hope of preventing the sort of explosions we're seeing now in Gaza. There would be an attempt to nudge both sides back to the peace plan proposed by Bill Clinton. The U.S. would demand an end to Palestinian terrorism but also put renewed pressure on Israel to roll back its settlements in Palestinian territories and allow a freer flow of traffic into Gaza.
Will Obama go this route? It won't be easy; there won't be immediate results — at best, a glacial accretion of trust between the parties. It will cause howls of betrayal from some of Israel's supporters in the U.S. But the neoconservative path has proved disastrous these past eight years; its practitioners stand well outside the emerging foreign policy consensus. After a period of ideological passion, we may be entering a no-drama interval. Welcome to Yoda's world.
Read TIME's political blog Swampland.