President Obama spoke extensively last year about a peace between Israel and Palestine. Geoffrey Aronson focuses on the same goal as director of research and publications at the nonprofit Foundation for Middle East Peace, and he is concerned about the way Obama is approaching it.

Under this administration, numerous government officials have gone to visit the Israeli government; on Monday, Vice President Joe Biden became highest-ranking diplomatic visitor. Yet a New America Foundation poll released in December gave Obama only a 41 percent favorability rating among Israelis.

Aronson spoke with NationalJournal.com about whether the administration's outreach efforts are paying off for Obama's agenda. Edited excerpts follow.

NJ: How do you think the administration is doing sending so many people to Israel?

Aronson: He's sending an awful lot of people there primarily because of Iran. The Israeli Chief of Staff has met with [Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen] more than nine times in the past year.... That seems an extraordinary number of times. The Americans are doing a lot of babysitting with the Israelis. I think one has to look back to the period before and during the first Gulf War when there was a real concern that Israel would enter the war against Iraq, then under Saddam Hussein, in an effort to remove the threat, perceived or actual, of missiles... that the Israelis were concerned would be sent their way once the war started. The Americans wanted to keep Israel out of the game at all costs.... During the war itself they sent over [then-Deputy Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger] to keep everybody on the same page. And I think that's the vital precedent here.... The U.S. is not interested, I think, as a strategic matter, in having Israel engage in these kinds of operations.

NJ: Former President George W. Bush is very popular in Israel. How do you think Obama can transition to win support for his agenda among Israelis since they have a wait-and-see attitude with new presidents?

Aronson: We all wait and see. I don't think the Israelis are unique in that.... They liked Bush, I suppose, because Bush didn't make any real demands on them. They were able to determine what their policies would be almost without reference to American preferences or concerns -- which in any case were not oppositional.... [Obama] has suggested America has a national interest to pursue certain policies, and one would expect him to continue down that road.

NJ: On this trip, what do you think Biden's move should be?

Aronson: I'm not quite sure why he's there. I think there's a risk when you have so many messengers creating ambiguity and uncertainty or lack of clarity that perhaps could be used or abused by Israelis who are not particularly interested or as concerned as they might or should be about following American efforts there. It's like the game of "telephone," where you tell 20 people and you start out with one issue and you end up with the 20th person with something that doesn't really sound like the first one.... He'll smile a lot and shake some hands and I think he'll say "OK, boys, we understand your concerns about Iran. Leave it to us, we're on it, we're taking care of it. Don't go off on your own -- no freelancing. You don't have a green light."

NJ: Israel just built drones. Is that a big fear?

Aronson: They have a multiplicity of arms that they could conceivably employ depending on what they want to do.... But until now, the Israelis are still on the bus. They are still interested in deferring to U.S. diplomacy on this. One hopes that will remain the case.

NJ: What do you think Obama should handle other issues relating to a Palestinian peace, like the blockade cracking down on the Gaza Strip?

Aronson: I think the blockade is shameful. It's not the right thing to do and it should be ended.... He's got all sorts of ways to do it. We haven't seen any evidence that they're prepared to do anything but tinker along the margins of that policy that Israel has begun and that we are complicit in -- as is Egypt and the rest of the international community. I don't think it's only a U.S. view, it's the considered opinion of the major actors there that the people of Gaza have to live in basically a ghetto with only enough to keep them alive with a policy that's managed explicitly to prevent them from working and getting healthy and eating well and traveling.

NJ: Do you still think a two-state solution is really possible for Obama since there is a Palestinian majority on both sides of Israel?

Aronson: Sure. As history shows, you can draw borders anyplace you choose. Demography can help or hurt, but it's the considered view that a two-state solution to this is the best way to address chronic instability in the region.

NJ: How do you think Obama can make the case that a peace with Palestine is national priority?

Aronson: Making the case is easy -- he's done that. He said so. What he has to do is create a diplomatic framework and to decide in his own mind that he's prepared to invest the energy and the capital, and the hard-headed determination to convince, cajole, reconcile the affected parties to a view that the United States supports. Because left to their own devices, it's become apparent that they can't do it or won't do it.