Just when it appeared that the United States was about to wash its hands from the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, new information is emerging from Washington indicating the opposite.

Many observers of U.S. foreign policy understand that in an election year, the U.S. is unable to articulate a coherent (and possibly confrontational with the pro-Israel lobby) strategy in regards to the Palestinian conflict.  The day after President Barack Obama won a hard-fought electoral battle in which the Israeli prime minister clearly and publicly favored his opponent, many expected that the U.S. president would immediately shift to a more genuinely neutral policy towards the Middle East conflict. That may still happen, but foreign policy, like everything else, can’t be carried out without a well thought-out strategy, action plan and most importantly individuals who will carry the baton and implement it.

With the position of the special Middle East envoy George Mitchell having been vacated even before the beginning of the election cycle, and key members of the foreign policy team leaving, the U.S. president was not about to begin a process in the Middle East and get his fingers burned again. It also didn’t make sense for the American diplomatic machine to begin before the Israeli elections and before an Israeli government was formed, its policies articulated and the Knesset voting confidence in it.

These important pieces of the puzzle are now falling in place. The new U.S. secretary of state, John Kerry, has been confirmed, Israeli elections have been held and despite the trouble facing Chuck Hagel, his confirmation is no longer in question.