Over at Shadow Government, Michael Singh makes a great point about George Mitchell’s mission to Israel/Palestine:

 …success in accomplishing these steps in Gaza can also serve as a model of practical, ad hoc, multilateral cooperation to advance peace based on shared interests. Because any future Palestinian state is likely to be relatively weak, anchoring that state and its peace commitments within a larger regional context is crucial. This will require an appeal to the same sort of shared interests at play in the Gaza conflict -– whether countering the potential threat of a hegemonic Iran, or preventing the growth of state-within-a-state groups that threaten governments across the region. Sen. Mitchell can cite these interests in extolling Arab leaders to support the PA diplomatically and financially, reach out to Israel, and begin a serious discussion about how a Palestinian state will be integrated into the economic and security architecture of the region.

While this sort of regional cooperation by itself will not bring peace, it can certainly speed that peace along and make it more sustainable once it is achieved.

If that’s a conservative case for a robust, sustained multilateral commitment to midwifing a Palestinian state, liberals should embrace, nurture and big-up it. Notice that Singh’s argument provides a building ground for a discussion about what sort of Middle East regional actors and their global partners want to build in five, 10, 15 years, something that flows nicely from Obama’s remarks to al-Arabiya.

Housekeeping note: I’m going to be covering Bob Gates’ imminent testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee this morning for the Washington Independent so expect a lot of crossposted stuff about that.