All Policy Analysis by David Makovsky

In the coming months, what the parties say will be more important than what they do.

In January, the Atlantic published a series of policy proposals for the Obama administration's second term by Washington Institute scholars. The full series is collected here.

As the projected makeup of the leading faction in Israel's next government becomes increasingly clear, Washington should begin considering what it might mean for U.S. policy.

The New York Times convened an online panel of five Middle East experts to discuss diplomatic efforts to end the deadly confrontation between Israel and Palestinian militants in Gaza. The following contribution was made by Washington Institute Ziegler distinguished fellow David Makovsky, director of the Institute's Project on the Middle East Peace Process.

Washington's objective should be to persuade all parties that returning to the de facto ceasefire serves everyone's best interests, though even that outcome promises instability if Hamas does not crack down on jihadist groups in Gaza.

Don't believe the loose talk of President Obama exacting vengeance on Benjamin Netanyahu -- the two leaders need each other too much to let old grudges get in the way.

Israel's non-strike against Iran means it is keeping its options open while avoiding once-familiar tensions with the United States.

The lack of a clear challenger is just one of the many reasons why a confident Netanyahu is calling for early elections.

Given the strategic issues at stake and Washington's track record with nuclear rogues, Israel and the United States should keep their disagreements to themselves.

Although the United States and Israel agree that Iran should not be permitted to have nuclear weapons, they may not see eye-to-eye on how to achieve that goal. In particular, high-profile disagreements have surfaced regarding redlines and deadlines for termination of the regime's nuclear program. In addition to complicating U.S.-Israeli