Dear Bill,

Now that the election is over, the feeling of What next? is certainly lodged on your mind. During the campaign, you and the electorate rightly chose to frame the race around one issue: the economy. This choice, however, put all the demands of the global picture on the back burner and now there is the danger of problems boiling over, particularly in the Mideast.

And while it's true that the Republicans left you a big mess to clean up in Washington and elsewhere, you still have major responsibilities as President-elect to the world outside America.

One of the few things that the Not-So-Fabulous Bush and Baker Boys did not screw up was bringing the Israelis and their Arab neighbors to the negotiating table.

But that was a year ago, and for Bush, getting re-elected with Jim Baker's help was more important than letting Baker do his job in the Mideast. Now it's time for your new administration to send the right signals to all parties involved in Mideast negotiations.

On a good note, the day after you took office you specifically said in your statement that you want to see "continued progress in the Mideast peace talks."

It's your task to ensure that these talks progress substantially; after a year of the participants haggling over the shape of the table and the color of the drapery, it's time that you prod these talks along. Here are some tips based on the constraints you face and the possibilities you have.

. Your Administration should clearly define and enunciate the fundamental principle that underlies these peace talks. Both sides realize that any discussion of peace entails trading (some) land for peace. We all know it, it's your job to just say it. Needless to say, you need not specify which lands should go to whom and on what date; that's for the negotiators to work out.

. Recognize the dual claims of nationhood within the land that exists between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River. Realize that little real progress will be made between Israel and her neighbors without a negotiated agreement that grants a gradual shift to autonomy and self-rule for the Palestinians.

. The one possible exception to this is a potential Israel-Syria peace. Though it's probably not in the best interests of everyone, it is still possible that Syrian President Assad will make a separate deal with Prime Minister Rabin. Itamar Rabinovich, the chief negotiator for Israel (with Syria) since Labor won last June, has done an excellent job in moving the Israel-Syria talks forward.

Nevertheless, proceed cautiously on this one. Assad's Syria is still on the list of countries supporting terrorists, and supporting him outright would make your promise to not "coddle" dictators a dubious one. Furthermore, both Syria's and Iran's continued arms buildup require skillful diplomacy to balance each other.

Should a deal be worked out, there is still a constructive role for you to play. If (or, more likely when) the Israelis partially withdraw from the Golan Heights, the U.S. can serve as armed observers to ensure that the transition and/or interim period is orderly and peaceful.

Remember--it is more important for the U.S. to ensure that all negotiations proceed successfully. By allowing the Syrians to duck out, you're giving Assad more time and resources to tighten his grip on Lebanon and achieve regional hegemony. (If Hezbollah continues its attacks on Israeli towns and villages, the chances of this separate peace emerging are decreased somewhat.)

. Retract your silly campaign promise to object to any formation of a Palestinian state.

Strategically, your rhetoric offers no incentive to the Palestinian delegation to negotiate peacefully. As Cabot Professor of Social Ethics Herbert C. Kelman, a specialist in negotiations, pointed out, "Those Israelis who favor withdrawal from the territories are now basically thinking about some form of a Palestinian state as the best arrangement...so it's silly for the U.S. administration to make a policy that opposes Palestinian statehood outright."