It's difficult to get this story verified - at least parts of it. Here is the latest from Haaretz:

"Palestinian negotiator Nabil Shaath said on Thursday that U.S. special envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell has denied that President Barack Obama offered to support an Israeli presence in the Jordan Valley following the founding of a Palestinian state in exchange for Israel extending a freeze on settlement construction in the West Bank for another two months.

In an interview on Nazareth's A-Shams radio station, Shaath said that Mitchell made the denial during a meeting on Thursday with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah."

"But one, who, himself half alive, is begging alms from a shadow, is pathetic."
O.Mandelstam

Another day, and other Professor Walt anti-Semitic rant.
.
Those greedy Jewish Bastards!!! They can't even propery accept hush-money bribes under the tables. How dare they spurn the US largess for only TWO MORE MONTHS of a building freeze. How dare they mock the US attempt to make peace. Why look at all the hard work the US put in to getting the Palestinians to the table, and hell, it only took 11 months of American begging to get Mahmoud Abbas to even deign to sit down with the Israelis . . .
.
Wait for it.
.
SO THAT THE PALESTINIANS COULD NEGOTIATE FOR AN INDEPENDENT STATE OF THEIR OWN!!!
.
God, what does it take to get it through people's heads. Israel made this huge concession nearly a year ago. But the Palestinians decided to harrumph their way into their own corner, only to spew out the idea that if the Israelis dare keep their word to a 10 month freeze, that they will once again WALK!!!!
.
Whew, we saw how productive that was the last two times around. Let's see, 2000 Camp David sees Ehud Barak making offers only to have Yasser Arafat launch his last war. Prime Minister Olmert makes another offer to Abu Mazen three years ago, that was supposedly even more generous, only to see him run away.
.
Now, after Israel once again lays its cards on the table, making that generous, 'gesture' as people continue to demand it make so that The Palestinian strongman in chief can merely sit down, only to see the Palestinians once again, stand up and play games.
.
Either they want a state or they don't, and the Palestinians show every one in the room, including themselves, that they don't want one.
.
But of course, in the Looking Glass world of Stephen Walt, only the Jews, those greedy money-grubbing (according to TIME Magazine) backstabbing evildoers, those, those ZIONISTS, would make the US President go begging.
.
Let me know when Walt is cured of his amnesia and remembers the last 11 months. Either that or someone pull the boy from his bubble.

If this offer was made and most likely some sort of offer was made out of political "domestic considerations" for the coming elections, then we have sunk even further under the "lobby's" pressure.

Reading the comments here I have a suggestion to the posters who might believe as I do, that the US is far too controlled on ME policy by the zionist elements among the US Jews.
And that suggestion is...don't waste your time arguing with the delusional pro Israelis and don't get sucked into debating the religious nonsense and all the other myths associated with Israel.

Just keep repeating the bottom line truth that people will willingly recongize:

1) The US is not responsible for and does not 'owe' the Jews for their holocaust or any other suffering.
2) The US does not "owe" Israel anything.
3) Israel is a libility to the US not an asset.
4) Support for Israel comes from US politicans corrupted by Jewish political donations that demand favortism for Israel and not because Israel has any value to the US or any of it's interest.
5) The Isr-US ponzi scheme...Taxpayer money for Israel = Jewish political donations for politicians ....cost US taxpayers over 3 billion a year plus numerous under reported public grants and loans and takes that money directly away from improving the welfare of Americans or aiding truly worthy causes.

You just keep telling the public this every chance you get till it sinks in and they start resenting it and they will.....and eventually the majority pubic will make support of Israel a negative for our politicians.
.

UN Fact-Finding Mission: Israeli Killing Of US Citizen Was "Execution"

The report of the fact-finding mission of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) on the Israeli attack on the Gaza flotilla released last week shows conclusively, for the first time, that US citizen Furkan Dogan and five Turkish citizens were murdered execution-style by Israeli commandos.

The report reveals that Dogan, the 19-year-old US citizen of Turkish descent, was filming with a small video camera on the top deck of the Mavi Marmara when he was shot twice in the head, once in the back and in the left leg and foot and that he was shot in the face at point blank range while lying on the ground.

The report says Dogan had apparently been "lying on the deck in a conscious or semi-conscious, state for some time" before being shot in his face.

The forensic evidence that establishes that fact is "tattooing around the wound in his face," indicating that the shot was "delivered at point blank range." The report describes the forensic evidence as showing that "the trajectory of the wound, from bottom to top, together with a vital abrasion to the left shoulder that could be consistent with the bullet exit point, is compatible with the shot being received while he was lying on the ground on his back."

Based on both "forensic and firearm evidence," the fact-finding panel concluded that Dogan's killing and that of five Turkish citizens by the Israeli troops on the Mavi Marmari May 31 "can be characterized as extra-legal, arbitrary and summary executions." (See Report [.pdf] Page 38, Section 170)

Story continues below
AdvertisementThe report confirmed what the Obama administration already knew from the autopsy report on Dogan, but the administration has remained silent about the killing of Dogan, which could be an extremely difficult political problem for the administration in its relations with Israel.

The Turkish government gave the autopsy report on Dogan to the US Embassy in July and it was then passed on to the Department of Justice, according to a US government source who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the administration's policy of silence on the matter. The source said the purpose of obtaining the report was to determine whether an investigation of the killing by the Justice Department (DOJ) was appropriate.

Asked by this writer whether the DOJ had received the autopsy report on Dogan, DOJ spokesperson Laura Sweeney refused to comment.

The administration has not volunteered any comment on the fact-finding mission report and was not asked to do so by any news organization. In response to a query from Truthout, a State Department official, who could not speak on the record, read a statement that did not explicitly acknowledge the report's conclusion about the Israeli executions.

The statement said the fact-finding mission's report's "tone and conclusions are unbalanced." It went on to state, "We urge that this report not be used for actions that could disrupt direct negotiations between Israel and Palestine that are now underway or actions that would make it not possible for Israel and Turkey to move beyond the recent strains in their traditional strong relationship."

Although the report's revelations and conclusions about the killing of Dogan and the five other victims were widely reported in the Turkish media last week, not a single story on the report has appeared in US news media.

The administration has made it clear through its inaction and its explicit public posture that it has no intention of pressing the issue of the murder of a US citizen in cold blood by Israeli commandos.

On June 13, two weeks after the Mavi Marmara attack, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs issued a statement saying that Israel "should be allowed to undertake an investigation into events that involve its national security" and that Israel's military justice system "meets international standards and is capable of conducting a serious and credible investigation."

Another passenger whom forensic evidence shows was killed execution-style, according to the OHCHR report, is Ibrahim Bilgen, a 60-year-old Turkish citizen. Bilgen is believed by forensics experts to have been shot initially from the helicopter above the Mavi Marmara and then shot in the side of the head while lying seriously wounded.

The fact-finding mission was given forensic evidence that, after the initial shot in chest from above, Bilgen was shot in the head with a "soft baton round at such close proximity that an entire bean bag and its wadding penetrated the skull and lodged in the chest from above," the mission concluded.

"Soft baton rounds" are supposed to be fired for nonlethal purposes at a distance and aimed only at the stomach, but are lethal when fired at the head, especially from close range.

The forensic evidence cited by the fact-finding mission on the killing of Dogan and five other passengers came from both the autopsy reports and pathology reports done by forensic personnel in Turkey and from interviews with those who wrote the reports. Experts in forensic pathology and firearms assisted the mission in interpreting that forensic evidence.

The account, provided by the OHCHR of the events on board the Mavi Marmara on its way to help break the economic siege of Gaza May 31 of this year, refutes the version of events aggressively pushed by the Israeli military and supports the testimony of passengers on board.

The report suggests that, from the beginning, Israeli policy viewed the Gaza flotilla as an opportunity to use lethal force against pro-Hamas activists. It quotes testimony by Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak before the Israeli government's Turkel Committee that specific orders were given by the Israeli government "to continue intelligence tracking of the flotilla organizers with an emphasis on the possibility that amongst the passengers in the flotilla there were terror elements who would attempt to harm Israeli forces."

The idea that the passenger list would be seeded with terrorists determined to attack Israeli defense forces appears to have been a ploy to justify treating the operation as likely to require the use of military force against the passengers.

When details of the Israeli plan to forcibly take over the ships in the flotilla were published in the Israeli press on May 30, the passengers on board the Mavi Marmara realized that the Israelis might use deadly force against them. Some leaders of the IHH (the Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Aid), which had purchased the ships for the mission, were advocating defending the boat against the Israeli boarding attempt, whereas other passengers advocated nonviolence only.

That led to efforts to create improvised weapons from railings and other equipment on the Mavi Marmara. However, the commission concluded that there was no evidence of any firearms having being taken aboard the ship, as charged by Israel.

The report notes that the Israeli military never communicated a request by radio to inspect the cargo on board any of the ships, apparently contradicting the official justification given by the Israeli government for the military attack on the Mavi Marmara and other ships of preventing any military contraband from reaching Gaza.

According to the OHCHR report, Israeli Chief of General Staff Gabi Ashkenazi testified to the Turkel Committee August 11 that the initial rules of engagement for the operation prohibited live fire except in life-threatening situations, but that that they were later modified to target protesters "deemed to be violent" in response to the resistance by passengers.

That decision apparently followed the passengers' successful repulsion of an Israeli effort to board the ship from Zodiac boats.

The report confirms that, from the beginning of the operation, passengers were fired on by helicopters flying above the Mavi Marmara to drop commandos on the deck.

Contrary to Israeli claims that one or more Israeli troops were wounded by firearms, the report says no medical evidence of a gunshot wound to an Israeli soldier was found.

The OHCHR report confirms accounts from passengers on the Mavi Marmara that defenders subdued roughly ten Israeli commandos, took their weapons from them and threw them in the sea, except for one weapon hidden as evidence. The Israeli soldiers were briefly sequestered below and some were treated for wounds before being released by the defenders.

The OHCHR fact-finding mission will certainly be the most objective, thorough and in-depth inquiry into the events on board the Mavi Marmara and other ships in the flotilla of the four that have been announced.

The fact-finding mission was chaired by Judge Karl T. Hudson-Phillips, Q.C., retired judge of the International Criminal Court and former attorney general of Trinidad and Tobago, and included Sir Desmond de Silva, Q.C. of the United Kingdom, former chief prosecutor of the United Nations-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone and Ms. Mary Shanthi Dairiam of Malaysia, founding member of the board of directors of the International Women's Rights Action Watch Asia Pacific.

The mission interviewed 112 eyewitnesses to the Israeli attack in London, Geneva, Istanbul and Amman, Jordan. The Israeli government refused to cooperate with the fact-finding mission by making personnel involved in both planning and carrying out the attack available to be interviewed.

The Turkish governments announced its own investigation of the Israeli attack on August 10. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon announced the formation of a "Panel of Inquiry" on August 2, but its mandate was much more narrowly defined. It was given the mission to "receive and review the reports of the national investigations with the view to recommending ways of avoiding similar incidents in the future."

In this case the parties need to start over and provide evidence of their plenipotentiary powers. It is doubtful that the leaders could convince their own constituencies to accept any deal they might negotiate.

*Netanyahu continues to give us the finger, at least in part, because he can no longer control or satisfy Lieberman's party or the settlers by doing anything less.

*Abbas represents the foreign donors, but his support among Palestinians vanished a long time ago.

*With or without the WINEP letter, the White House has obviously decided to emulate Truman's election year strategy and recognize Israel (early and often) as the state of the Jewish people.

This is a recipe for another war.

Prof Walt: Quite. You were right in 2007, and you are right today.
The hope that President Obama inspired in Cairo is gone.
And that is just too bad.

There has been a freeze now for almost a year. History repeats itself here - the Palestinians want what was offered previously and they spurned. One would think if they were serious they would get out ahead of these offers at some point rather than keep pining for yesterday's.

Another big truism reveals itself here too -- Obama went back on Bush's agreement with the Israelis over building within the existing settlements, and his own agreement when his administration at first praised Israel for their freeze (not emcompassing Jerusalem) and then created a diplomatic crisis over building in Jerusalem. It really didn't hurt the US when he did it, but it damaged our crediblity. Why should Israel (or anyone, for that matter) take us at our word now?

Netanyahu has been giving Obama the finger ever since the Cairo speech in June 2009, but instead of being punished for it, he's getting rewarded for being so difficult. So why should any rational person expect Bibi's position to change if this is what happens when he digs in his heels?

Not such an insightful analysis, Professor. You seem to 1) forget the freeze even as you write about it, and 2) are somehow blind to the fact that the same thing could have been said of the Palestinians, who gave Obama the finger by not coming to the table when Obama forced Israel to accede to the freeze. Just one case in point, the Palestinians dug in their heels and rather than get castigated for it Obama rewarded them for it, going back on his agreement by fomenting the crisis over Jerusalem and demanding additional concessions from Israel. Funny how you apply completely different prism to analogous situations depending on whether the actors are the Israelis or Palestinians.

You are also blind to the stunningly obvious here -- Obama's amateurish handling of this is why we are here today. It's not because of lack of pressure on the Israelis or Palestinians, it's not lack of good intentions, it is the fact that all of this was applied in an incompetent way showing a complete lack of foresight and understanding. The only positive I can see is that he hasn't taken on a shortsighted and extremely partisan advisor (like you) yet, which would probably have the sides openly shooting at each other by now (of course, by that I mean the Abbas Palestinians and Israelis shooting at each other, the Hamas Palestinians have been consistently shelling Israel and sporadically shooting at the Abbas Palestinians).

Get over it. It's easy to bash Israel for anyone of a mind. All countries behave in ways that offend. But to deliberately overlook (you who are well-informed), or to make assumptions (you with little knowledge but much self-righteousness) facts points to a motive not needing facts to sustain.

First just a few facts: 1. Israel and the Palestinians had a rough map of the separation border between to the two states years ago, long before Obama took office. It was Mr. Obama, in his none-to-subtle outreach to the Arab world who disregarded those borders and made the settlements the central bone of contention. Were I Abbas I too would have snatched up the free and unexpected gift.

Second, It continues Obama who, having brought the reluctant Palestinian to the peace table, continued to raise the "settlements" issue, thereby all but forcing Abbas to "demand" a continence of the moratorium. Recall, Israel called a "moratorium," not a cessation to building within towns and cities adjacent to the 1967 agreed-upon border, in "settlements" Abbas had already agreed would be Israel under a final agreement. How, if Obama still made Israel's moratorium, a plum to encourage Abbas back into talks nearly a year earlier, how could Abbas remain in the talks if the US makes the moratorium a pre-condition to talks?

The simple truth, and rarely is it so obvious except to those emotionally inclined against a state of the Jews, in other words knee-jerk, if polite, antisemites, is that wittingly or not the collapse of the peace talks, so needed now by the president to help shore up his flagging image for the upcoming elections, were planted and nourished by none other than the president himself.
were planted, then nourished by none other than the president himself.

"neocon" lik Walt supporting our very liberal president in his struggle to contain the the Tea-Party Republicans possible landslide next November. Politics and "strange bedfellows?"

they nonetheless remain facts.

The Obama Draft Letter to Israel: Why Netanyahu Is Unwilling to Extend the Freeze - David Makovsky

Prime Minister Netanyahu has put forward three arguments defending his unwillingness to extend the moratorium, relating to the issues of reciprocity, consistency, and relevance. First, he says the original U.S. idea to halt settlement activity in 2009 required reciprocal actions from Arab states, which were not forthcoming. Second, the Palestinians did not initially deem the moratorium as significant, wasting nine out of the moratorium's ten months by not opening direct talks. In Netanyahu's view, why would a matter originally deemed insignificant become suddenly indispensable?
Finally, he argues that the focus on settlements is excessive, since the parties will be dealing with the far larger issue of reaching the contours of an overall territorial solution within the next year. Beyond these arguments, it is also clear that Netanyahu fears losing elements of his coalition over the moratorium issue. (Washington Institute for Near East Policy)

http://italy.usembassy.gov/pdf/other/IB85066.pdf

To create a sense of urgency, world wide to achieve a negotiated Israeil-Palestinian Peace here's my idea. Think about it for a while. Think of the implications if it were to happen.

The OPEC countries announce that unless a Israel and the Palestinians sign a peace plan within 1 year, they will begin to reduce exports of crude oil. Think about the worldwide implications of this. Think about how you are going to get to work, get your kids to school and shop for food if a peace agreement was not signed. Then thank OPEC for not proposing this.

As one who has traveled to both Israel and Palestine, the current situation is not wise or sustaninable. It's a human rights issue that needs to be solved. ?Sixty two years (since 1948) is a long time to wait for a Palestinian state which failed negotiations continue. Forty three years (since 1967) is a long time to occupy land you don't own or is not recognized as part of the occupying country.

There is plenty of blame to go around on both sides, but I ask you to consider the following:

Why is it that for decades over 100 countries vote one way on a UN resolution on this issue and only 2-3 vote (US, Israel and perhaps the UK) the other way?

Possible reasons:
1. Worrld wide conspiracy against Israel
2. Israel's actions in the West Bank aka Occupied Territories

Which do you think is more plasible? Reason 1 or Reason 2?

The White House just got served!

"extension." Based on your comments you likely would agree that, well-intended as our president is, he is a babe in the woods with regard to the Middle East, and definitely misses the mark in his public dealings with Israel. He apparently entered the White House with a fully formed agenda regarding the "peace process." The problem is that he, with some justification, believed that the president of Israel's most important sponsor (and let's not be ourselves naive and think that the US does this from purely altruistic motives; if the investment in Israel did not pay handsome dividends to America's position regarding protecting the Arab oil producers in economics, and as a significant military power as part of the US strategic protection of the ME against threats to US hegemony then Israel would be the last outpost of Jewish identity itself threatened with elimination) can impose his demands on the tiny dependency.

The US invests in Israel because it serves US national interests to do so. As those interests drift away, as they have begun to do so with that unfortunate decision to destabilize the power balance in the region by decapitating the Iraqi regime, Israel would appear less important, more open to the sorts of coercion such as this administration has been doing. Of course this will have to adjust to realpolitik on the ground as an increasingly aggressive Iran muscle-flexes and the Sunni Moslems (this includes Turkey) are forced to accommodate the new regional hegemon, that Frankenstein which GW Bush promoted by removing Iraq from the Iranian frontier.

We already see the results of two equally naive and incompetent administrations in our long-time ally Turkey forging closer relations with Iran and Syria and Hezbollah and Hamas. The only significant ally of the US standing is, of course Israel. And even this administration, with its ideological pro-Moslem bent, is beginning to appreciate this.

Which brings me back to where "I don't entirely disagree with you, Sin".

So far as I can see Obama has made significant public guarantees regarding military and diplomatic cover, including recognizing Israeli outposts in the Jordan Valley in any peace agreement. If a short extension of the self-imposed moratorium is all that is being asked for, and if he is willing to publicly state that the US endorses Israel's continuing presence in the Valley, then I, based on the available evidence, would accept the deal.

...can you please stop being right so often? It's embarrassing.

and I know the blog stream will end tonight, I wish to thank several contributors for going beyond the supercilious tripe represented by the originating article, and actually tackling in a generally serious manner fundamental issues to the conflict. I don’t always agree with your approaches, and I sometimes suspect your motives, but I still appreciate your contributions to the discussion. Thank you, and good night!

The Obama administration's attempts at seducing Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, are getting embarrassing. Netanyahu has made it very clear he is not interested.

According to Ha'aretz, the latest (and most cringe-worthy) moment in the saga came this week when Dennis Ross, the president's top adviser on Israel-Palestinian issues, convinced Obama that Israel would only agree to an extension of the settlements freeze if Obama would "come off as friendlier" to Bibi.

So Ross and his aides (working with the Israelis) drafted a letter to Netanyahu in which the US would give Israel everything it could possibly want in exchange for a two-month freeze.

The details of the letter were revealed by researcher David Makovsky on the website of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

According to the report, the letter included incentives crucial to Israel's security that Netanyahu has been demanding for years. For example, the US pledged to support Israel's position on stationing Israeli troops in the Jordan Valley after the establishment of a Palestinian state, in order to prevent weapons smuggling.

The US also would not ask Israel to further extend the building moratorium and would pledge that the issue of settlements would be dealt with only as part of final-status talks with the Palestinians, the letter reportedly said.

The US also reportedly would veto any UN Security Council resolutions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict this year, would upgrade Israel's defence capabilities after the peace agreement, and would increase security assistance.

This reportedly would include providing Israel with advanced fighter jets and early warning systems, including satellites. The US also would start talks with Arab countries toward a regional agreement vis-a-vis Iran.

Netanyahu's one-way street

It is hard to imagine anything Ross left out. For Bibi, the Ross offer was a dream come true. All that for a 60-day freeze.

But Bibi said "no".

And why? "Netanyahu said he appreciated the letter but could not accept the American proposal because it included a two-month extension of the construction moratorium, which he said would damage his public credibility."

But the "moratorium" was the whole point of the offer. Bibi seems not to believe that his dealings with the US have to be two-way streets. He will only consider deals where the US gives and he gets. (But then, that is the way it always is.)

Ross and the other administration figures are now "incensed," having been played yet again.

They even went up to Capitol Hill to discuss the situation with Bibi's pals up there. No dice.

So it is back to the drawing board. Maybe Ross can give Bibi one of the 50 states (Alaska!).

But that will not work. The word from Israel is that Netanyahu is counting on a huge GOP landslide to save him from Obama. And then in 2012, there will be a Republican president who is more likely than Obama to let him bomb Iran.

Netanyahu has done this before. During the Lewinsky affair, he came to Washington, ignored President Clinton, and went up to the Hill to smoke cigars with Speaker Newt Gingrich and exchange Monica jokes. To understand Bibi, you need to realise that as much as he is Likud, he is a right-wing Republican.

Here is what we should do. Tell Netanyahu that either he agrees to the freeze or the US slows down the delivery of aid. After all, Israel is the #1 recipient of US aid in the world. Surely, there are ways the Pentagon can indicate displeasure.

Or maybe we can refuse to veto one of those Security Council resolutions that rightly condemn Israel's actions in occupied areas. We do not always have to be the one country in the world that stands alone at Israel's side when the UN attempts to pass a resolution we know is right.

I mean, we are the United States. We are also Israel's only real ally on the planet. We do not have to take this kind of dissing lying down.

And Dennis Ross, who came to the White House from the AIPAC-created Washington Institute for Near East Peace, should devote his attention to some other region of the world, one in which his penchant for wishful thinking would be relevant.

equally polite response. Civility should always govern discourse, even when people disagree. Speaking for myself I participate in these discussions to challenge myself, and my ideas, not to debate. And particularly when the issues are as serious, potentially catastrophic as those involved here, it is an act of arrogance to try to win on points. I unashamedly admit to being a "Zionist," an accusation that is bandied about as an epithet by several above. Moreover, I admit that to me the security and survival of Israel is primary. Which of course colors my comments overall. That said, I also believe that, in order for Israel to survive she must achieve peace with the Arab world.

Your question, SIN is an excellent one since it goes directly to the heart of the dangerous state of affairs in the Middle East today, and America's historic responsibility for the defense of the region, and responsibility too for perhaps having inadvertently contributed to Iran achieving her present defiance to the superpower, her existential threat to the entire region.

The US chose to take on the responsibility for the defense of the region upon the withdrawal of England, bankrupt and unable to maintain its imperial control of the region following the Second World War. Why this was necessary was and is self-evident. Arab oil, the Suez Canal, the strategic geography of the region. At that time the Soviet Union appeared ascendant and was anxious to achieve the long-term desire of Czarist Russia, a "warm water port" in the Mediterranean. With the emergence of the Cold War the only NATO country in a position to defend the region was the US.

As regional hegemon the US made guarantees, written in treaties as well as verbal, to protect and defend the Arabs, America's primary interest. Israel only grew in importance in American eyes in the mid-1960's. The Suez Canal had already fallen to Arab Nationalism the Arab oil producing monarchies were next in line. President Nasser forged a unification of radicals with Syria under the banner of the United Arab Republic. Egypt has a long coastline directly across from Jordan and Saudi Arabia; Syria borders Iraq. American interests, not an abstract emotional attraction, dictated Israel represent America as the frontline in the battle to contain the Soviet backed Arab nationalists. Military assistance continuing to flow to Israel, so often the brunt of criticism and joke from those ideologically opposed and uninformed, happens to be a good deal in protecting US regional interests. And while US aid is significant, it will always be far cheaper to the taxpayer than deploying and maintaining the level of military presence necessary to protect those interests. And beyond that, Israel also represents a military threat to US interests, and occasionally an American proxy in defending those interests.

Who, for example, would have stopped Syria from invading Jordan in support of Arafat's PLO insurrection ending in Black September had not Israel been there to counter-threat Syrian tank displacements along the Jordan's border? For that matter, who kept the radical-nationalist federation of Egypt and Syria, from carrying out their desire (and their Russian patron’s) to take over the weak oil producing monarchies. When one looks at the wars one should see beyond the Israeli victories to their American beneficiary.

And even today Israel’s Lebanon war not only served to vent anger over the kidnapping of those soldiers, but to send a message to both Iran and her military patron, Russia (is there a pattern emerging here?).

Are there good geopolitical reasons for American support of Israel, you bet. And now that Turkey has gone native, Israel is America’s only reliable boots on the ground in the region.

I’ll return to Turkey as an example of how a consistent threat of misunderstanding by the US of the Middle East created, and continues to exacerbate, America’s weakening position in the region.

But back to you question regarding Iran. Iran today is the problem it is due to the decision of the Bush Administration to invade Iraq and thereby eliminate the only military threat between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula. Recall the long and costly war between Iraq and which the Islamic Republic not only lost, but lost also over one million in casualties. As long as Iraq represented a threat, Iran contained her ambitions. When Bush replaced the Sunni regime with one headed by the majority Shiites Shiite Iran immediately became a player. The border between Iran and the Sunni oil producers narrowed to zero. Which helps explain Arab anxiety towards Iran.

To put it directly, the US neutralized Iraq, may have turned it into a satellite of Iran; but at least placed Ahmadinejad and the ayatollahs as major players in Iraqi politics, and policies.

So, in addition to exposing America’s Arab allies to imminent danger from Iran, that country, emboldened both by the gift Bush presented them, but also the fact that the US was now engaged in two endless and unwinnable insurgencies, was free, and defiantly so, to pursue the dream of a nuclear weapon.

And so the United States is directly responsible for hegemonic Iran and the destabilization of the region that country represents. And, bogged down in two wars, both of which Iran supports at a relatively low level the anti-American forces, in an effort not to further endanger its troops both recent presidents shied away from directly confronting the growing Iranian challenge. To this day US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen, shies away from committing to yet another Islamic war. In other words, tied down in two unwinnable and relatively unimportant military conflicts, the US feels it does not have the resources to fight the only truly important Islamic threat, Iran. And so American interests are not only at risk in oil, strategic geography, the Suez Canal, but shadow of the 1960’s, the US may well lose those interests to resurgent Russia, backer of the 21st century radical regime, its primary adversary during the Cold War.

the alliance than I. Outside of your conspiracy concerns regarding Israel's ( and the Saudis and the CIA) strong misgivings about Bush invading Iraq, I could not have marshaled the case better. Maybe a rereading of your contribution is in order.

the other is wrong from like-minded authors. It takes us nowhere. Allow me to quote Arab sources concerned with the Iran threat, irrefutably not Zionist. Israel did not invent the Iran threat, and it should be obvious from their military support of the Taliban and the Shiite militias in Iraq in the efforts to kill American troops that they decidedly do not seek rapprochement with the United States or, in their parlance, the Great Satan.

I mentioned Turkey moving away from the US and Israel earlier so wont repeat myself. This is one example of what Yousef al Otaiba, Uanited Arab Emirates ambassador to the US described in an interview: There are many countries in the region who, if they lack the assurance the US is willing to confront Iran, they will start running for cover towards Iran..." An Arab foreign minister is quoted (see The Atlantic, The Point of No Return, September, 2010): We are hoping for the pinpoint striking of several dangerous facilities. America could do this very easily."

Two earlier incidents: during the circus of administration pique during the Biden visit to Jerusalem where the public reason was the restart of "peace talks with Abbas, but the real mission was to dissuade Israel from attacking Iran, the US SecDef was bid to make an unscheduled stopover in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia to be lectured regarding where he was lectured regarding the US position vis the Iranian bomb. Two weeks later the SecState was similarly castigated. Also following the Biden fiasco the foreign minister of the United Arab Emirates held a press conference making public their displeasure with Obama try to quash talk of an Iran attack. According to the minister. "the UAE sees eye to eye with Israel regarding Iran,"

Look, we could debate this back and forth ‘til the cows return and it will change nothing. My only hope is, that introducing otherwise enemies of Israel into the anti-US policy re Iran that, if not you then other readers may be able to achieve a less biased understanding of the facts on the ground in the Middle East, and the costs to the US from a mismanaged Middle East policy.

Scratch an anti_Zionist and reveal the antisemite. Straight to the old Jewish conspiracy, ADDA. Will you next find that famed cabal of those rabbis hiding in your cellar, The Elders of Zion?

Scratch an anti_Zionist and reveal the antisemite. Straight to the old Jewish conspiracy, ADDA. Will you next find that famed cabal of those rabbis hiding in your cellar, The Elders of Zion?

tirades until now. Even accepting that all Arabs except, that is, those whose behavior you choose to overlook are all, "Arab tyrants who rely on US protection to keep them in power," they are still enemies of Israel except, and this is the critical point, ADDA, when it comes to Iran. Then they are content to ignore their enmity and actively (in the case of the Arabs), and passively (in the case of the US) encourage Israel to do the dirty; then stand by as their patsy is victim to the fallout.

Israel is damned to do or not, because this Iranian regime is a social-psychological loose cannon, to all appearances quite capable of carrying out their threats to Israel, the Arabs the US and the entire Christian West. An attack on Iran would trigger another global economic disaster and this would serve to isolate the attacker, in this case your own patsy, Israel, far more. In my opinion this would also pose an existential threat to the survival of the Jewish state, one it can even less contain than a nuclear Iran.

Were I privy to all the facts, and if they still pointed to the above, were I responsible for the Jewish state I would sit back and outwait, force The US and the Arabs sitting on their hands today to take responsibility for their own security.

Bush created the disaster, Obama seems content to allow it to develop. It is their responsibility to fix it, not Israel's.

Not that I would take Israel out of a mission to destroy Iran's nuclear program. But since the danger obviously falls first on the Arabs, and the US is primarily responsible for allowing Ahmadinejad's Iran to get this far, the effort should be a coalition of forces led by the US, not an action after which all can, as you today, point at Israel as the aggressor.

There are three parties represented here. The principal instigator of the talks is, of course, the Obama Administration. From the start the Palestinians held to their pattern established by Arafat at Camp David of having to be dragged into the the talks. And today, despite the administration offering to "officially" endorse a Palestinian state along the 1967 boundaries, Abbas is still deferring to a decision by the Arab League as to whether or not to participate. Two observations here that should be obvious. 1. Abbas does not now with a divided Palestinian territory have the power, the mandate (his term of office expired months ago) nor the power to negotiate peace with Israel even, and this is to my mind, in doubt, had he the desire to do so. 2. For the Palestinians the struggle is not between themselves and Israel, but an Arab-Israel issue. Would a people struggling for independence seek permission from outside sources to negotiate?

As regards Netanyahu, he is negotiating within his coalition to allow the extension; he, at least, does not want to embarrass Obama in the run-up to the elections, nor does he need outside approval to divide the land as a way to peace.

But the real problem in the present impasse is, and has been from the start, the president of the US. Almost from the day he entered office he made the settlements, for the most part already discussed and agreed by Israel and the Palestinians, into a territorial issue. Even were Abbas of a mind and authority to conclude a deal, he certainly cannot appear to take a lesser position than the US regarding settlements.

Is there a possibility that, under the best external conditions and with the most accommodating representatives of the PA and Israel that the two sides could conclude peace? Not with a divided Palestine. Which brings up the question of why now, why this massive effort by the administration to force peace talks in a place so unlikely to yield success, and more importantly, to deflect from the elephant in the region, Teheran's bomb?

The answer is either continuing naivte on the part of this administration regarding the possible, or to serve as a distraction from that elephant which Obama and his predecessor have both show an aversion to confront.

As with the Iranian threat, soon to be backed by a nuclear weapon, the US created that mess, and foolishly embarked on yet another obvious "never happen," successful negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

understanding of the end-game. Except I may be less forgiving of motive and method behind US actions than you. Iraq was plain stupid; consequences so obvious to all except Bush and his closest advisors. Afghanistan at least was called for and, at the start, highly successful. That Obama felt the need to jump into the quicksand suggests that he, like Bush, felt the need to prove his toughness. Not a good sign when a president self-perceives so weak he has to act tough.

At any rate US involvement in both theaters spread forces and resources thin and, according to the obvious traditional and narrow military leadership at the top insufficient to confront the real threat to US interests, Iran (backed by Russia; ironic that fifty years after the US successfully overcame the Soviet backing of radical Arab nationalism, today we may lose the region to Russia backing radical Islamist Iran!).

But that's just the latest chapter of US strategic bungling in the region and, although I pay far less attention, the rest of the world.

As regards the Levant, the only significant breakthroughs between Israel and her neighbors, such as Sadat to Jerusalem (with an even more right-wing Begin government!), and Oslo with the Palestinians, not only took place without US involvement; apparently without US knowledge. It appears that there is just no end to US misunderstanding and bungling when it comes to Israel-Palestine.

So I agree with you. A two-state solution may one day emerge. But if it does it will be in spite of US "good intentions."

Why is Israel the only country in the Middle East that is allowed to have nuclear weapons? So, nuclear weapons are tolerated in Israel but not in Iran? Explain that logic to me. The Arab League has proposed a nuclear free Middle East. That sounds like an excellent idea. Israel would give up their nuclear arsenal and Iran would stop developing theirs. In all the previous wars involving Israel, they have amply demonstrated that their conventional military forces and weapons are powerful enough to overcome any threat. The fact is that Israel will not allow any Arab nation to develop nuclear weapons. Want proof? Then just remember the air raids on nuclear power facilities in Iraq and Syria? A nuclear free Middle East makes a lot of sense any way you examine the situation.