Obama is condemned by the tea party and Israel for appeasing Palestinians – and by everyone else for doing Israel’s bidding. The shift of Israel from left-leaning to right-wing ethnic nationalist has made it the darling of the US right – and ‘Islamo-fascist’ the name of all its critics. Ian Buruma, Erasmus prize winner, pinpoints the realignment

From eager first talks to having nothing to say, the collapse of hopes for Obama and Palestinian rights has been fast and, it seems, decisive. But some on the Palestinian side believe Obama will be different in a second term writes Ziad Asali, President, ATFP

Palestinians do not want for themselves what Europeans want for them Polls (from 2010 and 2007) show a clear majority for a single democratic state, writes Mahmoud Musa, a critic of the PA. A second poll report shows nearly all Palestinians think Obama is biassed in favour of Israel

Author Alice Walker talks with Ali Abunimah about her impending passage on the ‘Stay Human’ flotilla and the echoes of the US’s Freedom Riders – and presidential indifference. Below, we publish the letter of American passengers on the ship Audacity of Hope, named in reference to Obama’s own 2006 book

Whatever happens at the UN, Palestinians are close to all attributes of statehood -except independence. That depends, writes Omar Dajani, on mobilising mass non-violent action

A “parallel states” solution has been developed by a team of Israeli, Palestinian and international scholars, policymakers and protagonists in the conflict. It is built upon a new understanding of sovereignty based on the relation between the state and the individual citizen not territory

Despite Netanyahu’s supposed anger at Obama’s speech, most others were disappointed that the president did not risk going further on Palestinian statehood and borders than President Clinton had. Understanding why begins with Dennis Ross, Obama’s Middle East advisor suggests this NY Times piece.

In his speech President Obama merely cofirmed what is now established thinking on Palestine. He had no new moves to offer that would extend state and civil rights for Palestinians writes Chris Doyle

It is hard to believe that Obama really thinks the US’s interest lies in following AIPAC’s lead. Perhaps he will heed the Move Over AIPAC demonstrators ( see Human rights groups organise public protest at power of AIPAC on this page)

George Hishmeh in the Palestine Chronicle condemns the Obama/Clinton policy on Middle East as confused given its active support for uprisings in many Arab countries but paralysis over Libya

MJ Rosenberg follows up his analysis of Aipac (posted earlier in the week) with this piece in the Huffington Post. Here he deals with the latest contribution by David Remnick, editor of the New Yorker and arguably the most influential Jewish American journalist writing today. Having traditionally given Israel the benefit of the doubt Remnick has now moved decisively against the “Israel First” brigade…

In his new blog, Antony Lerman looks at the inadequacy of media reporting on developments in Egypt. He also notes that often “flaky” responses by the US and the EU and argues that if they “fail the millions of young people yearning for change in the Middle East, by not using their influence to empower rather than control them, the disaffection that may set in could have catastrophic consequences, not only in the region but inside America and countries in Europe…”

“Given Israel’s complaints over the lack of democracy in the Middle East, one would expect it to be encouraged by the winds of change blowing from Algeria, Tunisia, Yemen, Egypt, and possibly Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Sudan. But this is not the case.”
Eyal Clyne, Barak Ravid, Zvi Bar’el and Gideon Levy report and ruminate…

Steve Clemons has posted a letter in the Washington Note from an array of concerned policy commentators and practitioners, academics, and former government officials about the resolution pending at the United Nations Security Council on illegal Israeli settlements in Occupied Territory. It represents a serious attempt to encourage Obama to match his words with action on this subject. But dare Obama rile Congress on this issue? And is it anyway too little too late?

Geoffrey Aronson, editor of FMEP’s bimonthly Report on Israeli Settlement in the Occupied Territories, surveys “almost two years of energetic but stillborn diplomacy [in which] the Obama administration has been unable to make progress on ending the occupation and creating a Palestinian state at peace with Israel. The president’s attempt to rein in settlement expansion and his effort to place settlements at the heart of a negotiated end to the Israel-Palestinian conflict have failed. As Obama surveys the future, he might recall Machiavelli’s wise counsel, “He who wishes to be obeyed must know how to command.”

Phyllis Bennis takes a look at Obama’s current position on the conflict and hopes of resolving it via the current peace talks. She finds nothing to be optimistic about: “[Obama] called on the Palestinians to “reconcile with a secure Israel” and waxed eloquent on the illegality of killing Israeli civilians. He called on the Palestinians’ friends to implement the Arab Peace Plan’s proposed normalization with Israel without ever mentioning the plan’s clear understanding that ending Israel’s 1967 occupation must come first. And he called on Israel to – talk nicely.”

Jeffrey Goldberg provides a long insider analysis of US and Israeli attitudes to Iran: “For the Obama administration, the prospect of a nuclearized Iran is dismal to contemplate— it would create major new national-security challenges and crush the president’s dream of ending nuclear proliferation. But the view from Jerusalem is still more dire: a nuclearized Iran represents, among other things, a threat to Israel’s very existence. In the gap between Washington’s and Jerusalem’s views of Iran lies the question: who, if anyone, will stop Iran before it goes nuclear, and how? As Washington and Jerusalem study each other intensely, here’s an inside look at the strategic calculations on both sides—and at how, if things remain on the current course, an Israeli air strike will unfold…”

A cynically cheerful take on the peace talks by Uri Avery, as each party – Netanyahu, Abbas, Obama – seeks to limit the damage. Clearly no-one expects peace to come out of these discussions…

Daniel Levy, a co-founder of J Street, gives a perceptive analysis of the forthcoming peace talks. Acutely aware of all the obstacles in the way of success, he yet finds room for some cautious optimism…
“The tantalizing thing that Obama will have to deliver here is an Israeli political yes. A solution cannot be imposed on Israel, clear choices can though be presented. If there is an Israeli yes to real de-occupation gestating somewhere in the Israeli public and body politic, then it is not going to emerge on its own, that much is clear today. If the Israeli yes is there, it is going to take a c-section to bring it out into the world, and the only available surgeon is President Barack Obama…”

Didi Remez of Coteret has published a translation of a Yedioth Ahronoth scoop which “publishes minutes of White House negotiations briefing for Jewish-American leadership”.