Is that Obama positioned himself to lecture Israel and to represent the Pal side of the argument. It also did not appear to be spoken through the context of the Roadmap--and America MUST insist the Pals continue on with the steps of the Roadmap, dismantle terror groups and recognize Israel's right to exist. He SHOULD have denounced Hamas' recent rocket launchings and told them they cannot fire rocket into Israel the same week they declare a renewal of ties with Fatah.

It is quite obvious that there is no love lost between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu. There is nothing new in this situation and while Obama said today that he would block the moves to delegitimize and isolate Israel, without a piece initiative this will continue. Prime Minister Netanyahu has to make a decision. Is he the Prime Minister if Israel or the Prime Minister of the Settlers, the extreme right and ultra hawks in his own party? Whatever he decides he must accept the responsibility that the future of every Israeli and their security is in his hands and he has to do what is best for the country and not only for the "Settlers". Most Israelis agree on points like Jerusalem and the Right of Return. However, the country is divided on the settlements in Judea and Samaria and most totally disagree with the creation of the "illegal" settlements and the violence of the settlers against our soldiers and police. Prime Minister Netanyahu should also note the reception and the cheers and few jeers that Obama received at the AIPAC affair. He has to make some very important decisions in the very near future and the question is whether he is up to it.

Dear Professor, Your paper is a mish-mash of truth, faintly distorted truths and total untruths. Here is item by item: “The current crisis is not by any means new” - true. Crises emerged periodically with several US administrations, both republican and democrat. Recall, for instance, Bush-Baker vs Shamir. “American administrations always espoused a solution that will include a withdrawal to the 1967 borders, with minor modifications required for security reasons” - not true. The Oslo accord and the Road Map called for negotiated borders, not return to 1967 borders or having 1949 armistice lines as a reference. Moreover, G.W. Bush administration agreed (in writing) to borders (not minor modifications) based on realities on the ground. “Withdrawal to the 1967 borders is commensurate with Security Council Resolution 242” – not true. The 1967 “borders” are in fact 1949 armistice lines; neither Israel, nor Arabs, nor UN treated them as official borders. The UNSC Resolution 242 (drafted by the US) calls for Israel’s withdrawal not to “1967 borders” but to “secure and recognized” borders. Here you, professor, adopted the Arab (and Soviet) interpretation of UNSCR 242. “Obama repeated the historic US position (regarding borders) but omitted Bush’s addition”. Your phrase, professor, sounds like – oops, Obama has forgotten to include Bush’s addition. Obama is the first acting US president who openly and deliberately called for the withdrawal to the “1967 borders” and made it US policy. “Thereby creating the impression that he was only speaking of a return to the 1967 borders” – this not an impression - this is strategic foreign policy of the current US administration. “Obama placed Israel security… at the top of the agenda”. Again, professor, this is just your interpretation. A more sober view is that the notions of security, Israel as a Jewish state, etc. in his speech were just platitudes and banalities aimed at gullible Jewish voters. “The borders issue is among the most important for the Palestinians, while security is of utmost importance for Israel” – not true. For Israel, these issues are inseparable. Can there be security without secure borders? “Obama attempted to work out a balanced American plan for resuming talks between Israel and the Palestinians” - I don’t know what you, professor, call balanced. I would prefer to learn from his speech (and your analysis) how he views the US strategic interests. Is America interested in creating a Hamas-Iran entity in the West Bank? Is America interested in restoring its fading influence in the Middle East by selling out Israel? Thanks for the enlightening article.

You could get vertigo reading this article there's so much spin. This guy missed his true calling in life - selling used cars or maybe a defense liar, sorry, I meant lawyer. There's no point getting into the substantive details of Obama's Middle-East policy, I think we all understand Mr Obama.

"relationship stronger than any president" utter male cow crap. god help us if this guy is an expert. DEFINE EXPERT: EX- is a has been. SPURT- a drip under pressure

Your analysis is far better than that of the learned "professor." Many of these acdemics cannot see the forest from the trees. Your points are logical and well written. You should write more often and publicly to counter the leftists. Yasher Koach.

Your corrections of the facts (what was written in the agreements, etc) are excellent! Thank you. One clarification you may have intended: The English version of UNSCR 242 was the official version. It stated "withdrawal from areas". The French (unofficial) version stated "withdrawal from ALL areas". The authors of the resolution confirmed that the word "all" was left out of the official version intentionally.

and is stealing money from the groups that are paying him. He is the resident idiot.

Media and stinkers trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. Obama is a friend of Israel's, and Israeli's better wake up and recognize that he is a deep thinker who has not said anything detrimental to Israel's right to exist or security. In fact, Obama shoved Israel's existence, et al, right into the Arab faces in Cairo and at the U.N. Israeli media's malignment of Obama is what is truly hurting Israel's security and straining the relationship. The shortsided nature of so many comments here belies the very issue we have as B'nai Yisrael -- we cannot see truthful existence for what it is but insist on imagining something it is not.

don't wooooorry Eitan! aaaalll will be weeeell just stick your head in the sand and dream dream dream sweet dreams of your lovely mulatto changey-hopey man...

in every respect. Obama CANNOT be trusted. That's where Israeli's need to start as they evaluate everything he says. He does not say anything by accident, and any "corrections" he admits to are only under pressure from powerful Jewish congressmen as well as other bona fide Israel supporters in the Congress. The American people also hold Obama back. Without the people of America holding Obama's feet to the fire, he would make you (if he could) give up Jerusalem, and he would roll back the borders to 1948. Remember you CANNOT trust Obama. Remember, his heroes: Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakahn, etc.

Mr. Gilboa writes... "However, Netanyahu is interested in starting with the heavier issues of Jerusalem, refugees and accepting Israel as a Jewish state, which the PM believes dictate all the other issues." Mr. Gilboa, the acceptance of Israel as a Jewish state does indeed dictate all the other issues. Israel cannot engage in negotiations with an organization that actively seeks to destroy the Jewish state, as is the stated goal of both Hamas and the PLO. Whether Israel's neighbors intend to destroy the Jewish state is not negotiable. A people who want the Jews pushed into the sea cannot be a partner for peace.

Your analysis is of demonstrably higher quality than the article to which you responded. Thank you for posting this!