Research Library

In the current absence of direct negotiations, the Obama administration has an opportunity to reshape the Israeli-Palestinian negotiating framework, according to a report by the Conflict Resolution Program at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. The report recommends that the administration continue to demonstrate strong U.S. support for the two-state model, test the willingness of the parties to compromise and adopt a more comprehensive approach to resolving the conflict with the support of the international community.

What strategy should the U.S. pursue in confronting ISIL and addressing the broader challenges of Iraq, Syria, Iran, Yemen, stability in the Persian Gulf, and the ever-present Israeli-Palestinian dispute? Leadership and engagement play a part, of course, but they must be subservient to a U.S. strategy whose objective is to protect and, if possible, advance our core interests in the region.

This report reviews the key concepts and themes that emerged from the conference “Divided Societies, Volatile States: The Politics of Identity Post-Arab Spring,” hosted by the Baker Institute Center for the Middle East on March 10, 2015.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s victory in the March 17 Israeli elections proved one thing: He is a politician of the very highest order. His party, Likud, won and — by the standards of recent Israeli elections — won big. This is in many ways a personal triumph for Netanyahu, who is already Israel’s second-longest serving prime minister. But what will Netanyahu’s triumph mean for U.S.-Israeli relations?

This report suggests the contours of a more comprehensive policy for the United States in the broader Middle East, one that pursues not only important tactical approaches to counter Islamic extremism and terrorism, but also shapes the larger strategic landscape to secure and promote U.S. interests. After defining the challenge for the United States and the international community, the report provides a brief narrative on the rise of ISIS before presenting key policy recommendations for a more strategic approach.

In a special report, the Baker Institute Conflict Resolution Program outlines goals and strategies for expanded U.S. public diplomacy efforts to support Israeli-Palestinian peace.

The changing regional geopolitics of the Middle East have created new opportunities for the Gulf states to engage in Arab-Israeli conflict resolution after the Arab Spring. This policy report examines the potential role that the six Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states — Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) — might play in Israeli-Palestinian conflict resolution. It presents policy recommendations on how the Gulf states can engage with regional and international partners and build upon the greater space for action as the shifting parameters of Middle East politics create new regional pathways for action and cooperation.

In the nearly three and a half years since the Arab Spring began, an outpouring of popular mobilization has transformed the region's political and social landscape. What do these momentous developments mean for the Middle East, and how should they inform U.S. policy in the region?

As Israeli-Palestinian peace talks "stumble toward collapse," blogs fellow Joe Barnes, the U.S. "needs a thorough rethink" about its role in negotiations.

Edward Djerejian, founding director of Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy and former U.S. ambassador to Syria and Israel, issued the following statement on the passing of former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.