One of the patterns the historians are going to see when they look back on our current transition is that during the months we are living through now, the tide shifted against the Jewish state. We do not suggest the tide can’t be turned back. But there is already a pattern apparent. During the first six years of the Bush administration, the geopolitical position of the Jewish state was relatively secure. Israel took risks during this period, withdrawing from territory it was holding — and had every right to hold forever — while its forces were still in combat. But in the strategic sense, its opponents within the State Department, the universities, and the foreign chancelleries and its neighboring Arab states were unable to move the American administration against it.

Suddenly, with the accession of the Democrats in the Congress and Mr. Bush being advised even by some members of his own party that victory in Iraq is impossible, factions hostile to Israel are gaining ground. Though Mr. Bush was supposedly going to avoid treating with Iran and Syria, our Eli Lake reported yesterday that moves are afoot to get American negotiators to sit with Iranian and Syrian diplomats at a parley in Riyadh designed, ostensibly, to deal with an economic compact between Iraq and its neighbors being brokered by the United Nations. Today Mr. Lake is reporting that an expert adviser to the Baker-Hamilton Commission expects the 10-person panel will recommend that the administration pressure Israel to make concessions in an effort to entice the Syrians and Iranians to cooperate.

A flavor of this is contained in a confidential memorandum written by a former CIA station chief in Saudi Arabia, Raymond Close, who is a member of the commission’s panel of expert advisers in respect of political development. Mr. Close wrote that he expected the commission will urge Mr. Bush to convene talks that would include not only Iran and Syria but also Israel. It’s not news that the administration might be pressed to reach out to Iran and Syria. It is news that the concession Mr. Bush is being asked to offer will be compromises from the Jewish state that the regimes in Iran and Syria have sought to destroy. Mr. Close, in his memo, notes that America should not “agree to restore Syria’s hegemony over Lebanon in return for Syrian cooperation on the Iraq question.” He goes on to posit “perhaps the U.S. will have to put pressure on Israel to make territorial concessions in the Golan.”

What Mr. Close is doing as an “expert” on this panel is beyond us. His son, Kenneth Close, is a registered foreign agent for Saudi Arabia. The senior Mr. Close abruptly ended his career at the Central Intelligence Agency to work for the then chief of Saudi intelligence, Kamal Adham. More recently, the senior Close has joined an organization called Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, which called for the resignation of the elected vice president of America, Dick Cheney, for allegedly misleading America into the Battle of Iraq. No wonder he is pressing on the commission the idea that victory is impossible. We don’t suggest Mr. Close’s advice is going to be taken. We do suggest these are times when those who attach importance to the survival of the Jewish state will need to be on their toes.

This is a problem not only for Republicans who root for the success of the Bush doctrine but also for Democrats who root for the success of their party’s leadership in the coming two years. The Bush administration has been an extraordinarily good friend to Israel during the years when Mr. Bush himself was moving with confidence. But the Republicans have their own factions who are not so friendly to the Zionist idea. We do not believe that the real traditions of the Democratic Party are hostile to Israel. There are many good friends of Israel — Senators Schumer and Clinton for starters — in the rising leadership within the party. Some of the freshman Democrats who will be sworn in during January ran for their office on hawkish platforms. But the left-wing factions within the Democratic Party would be all too happy to see Israel placed in jeopardy. One of the party’s elder statesmen, President Carter, is on television promoting his new book, “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.” All of which to say is that these are dangerous times not only for Israel but also for the leaders who understand this issue on both sides of the aisle.