I don't necessarily agree with Stephen Walt's idea as to where the Israeli/Palestinian situation is headed over the long term; specifically, I regard the whole idea of a "one-state solution" as a debating point and not much more.

However, Laura Rozen is essentially correct to surmise that President Obama is setting the (fairly woolly) policy direction, and leaving its pursuit to a team that is too large and divided amongst itself. This is very like the way Obama has operated with respect to other important foreign policy issues, like Afghanistan. It has significant shortcomings, no matter what one's views are as to the issue in question.

Foreign policy is not community organizing. Consensus among people in a meeting at the White House doesn't matter so much. What matters are clear lines of authority, subordinates of the President understood overseas to speak for the President, and decisions that once made are not instantly reconsidered. Obama's Middle East policy doesn't appear to have any of these.

In that context, the public appearance of tension within the team Obama has assembled to deal with this problem is probably a good thing. It is at least possible that the appearance of disunity among the large group of people Obama has grappling with the Middle East will prompt him to choose among them -- which doesn't guarantee he will choose correctly, but would at least give clarity to American policy that has been missing to this point.

I wouldn't be consistent with things I have written often enough before if I didn't note the near-invisibility of Obama's Secretary of State in this discussion.

"Question: Is this how a smart great power behaves?

Answer: Not if it wants to get anything done or be taken seriously. "

I think this is the best way to "sell" our need to deal seriously with Israel. Appealing to the avuncular nature of the American male is always a good political appeal.

Obviously, Mitchell hasn't done so yet, because he believes doing so would be problematic for his career prospects within the Democratic establishment.

Okay, so now you can name all those people within the Republican establishment who supported the invasion of Iraq not out of principle, but because they thought it would be good for their career. Leslie Gelb clearly doesn't count.

Still waiting on that.

Rather than looking for weakness and retreat in Obama’ s movements towards the present ME situation, let us imagine they are part of a deliberate and carefully orchestrated plan.

What has been achieved?

Israel today is weaker globally than 22 months ago and this has been achieved without an iota of negative input from Obama who, on the contrary, has faced Israeli intransigence with a resigned dignity not seen since Harold Macmillan faced the Ruskies across the Berlin Wall. Israel, exploiting the presumed weakness of the Obama Administration, has inexorably been inching away from the role of untouchable victim towards something much less savoury. Even the US media now allows veils to fall that would have been pinned back in place 22 months ago. What has been achieved did not even require intervention from the CIA or the spinning of events, only Israeli actions under the awakened searchlights of the world’s press

It is not conceivable that Obama was unaware of the inevitable failure of these negotiations. All that initial scene setting before the world’s press, teeth agleam, handshakes across Mrs Clinton’s chest heaving with hope and expectation. Abbas had always said the talks would end if the settlement construction started again while Netanyahu had said the freeze would not be extended. Everyone knew that. Obama’ s ‘bribes’ were never going to be accepted, he knew that too or he wouldn’t have offered them. Nor, for that matter, would Abbas have remained silent in face of them.

At this moment in time, as Edward Heath used to say, Abbas appears a much put upon statesman of integrity and vision, Obama a President who has bent over backwards to achieve Peace, and Netanyahu, Lieberman etc., well, not so fluffy.

Meanwhile, consider what is unfolding with Iran. For some time I have entertained a sneaking suspicion there is some US, Russian, Iranian hanky panky going on back there and we are being prepared for a sudden resolution of the Iranian nuclear issue with all the handshaking that implies; a nice ‘check’ for Obama if not yet ‘checkmate’.

One often hears the claim that their Deity gave the Jews the land between the Jordan and the sea but they seem to forget how often He relieved them of it when they were naughty.

Professor Walt is right to be exasperated with Team Obama. Walt's analysis is entirely correct except for one important item. Israel is not a client state of the U.S. For all practical purposes, the U.S. is now a client state of Israel. Or, to mix metaphors, the tail has been wagging the dog for a very long time now, certainly predating Obama, who is little more than a straw man of no consequence.

How did all this happen? Shall we go back to Harry Truman or Woodrow Wilson? It is only necessary to go back to Lyndon Johnson and the Israeli attack on U.S.S. Liberty. It is all politics, not foreign policy. Everyone accepts and panders to the spurious assumptions and concocted narrative proffered by the Israel Lobby. Under these circumstances, how could any Washington official ever get mad at Israel or think that he or she has been diddled? The idea of anyone in Washington putting pressure on Tel Aviv at this point in the proceedings is wishful thinking.

Germanicus
=========