But given the fact that the Palestinian Authority and Abbas are in no position to make any deal with Israel no matter where such an agreement placed the borders between Israel and a Palestinian state, the Obama-orchestrated dog-and-pony show staged for the press today is, in fact, simply more of the same. Like George W. Bush’s Annapolis Summit, held in the fall of 2007, the pictures and the talk about the need for progress are utterly futile. After that meeting, Netanyahu’s predecessor Ehud Olmert offered Abbas pretty much the deal that the “experts” on the Middle East always claim is the only solution: a two-state plan, with the Palestinians getting virtually all the West Bank as well as part of Jerusalem. But Abbas was no more able to say yes to this than Arafat was when Ehud Barak offered him almost as much in the summer of 2000.

What is different about the current situation is that when this president makes “evenhanded” statements in which he poses a moral equivalence between Israel and the Palestinians, his coolness to the Jewish state during his nine months in office leads one to believe that he really means it. Obama’s obsession with trying to halt the building of Jewish housing not only in Jerusalem but also in the West Bank (parts of which were accepted by the Bush administration as permanently belonging to Israel in exchange for Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza) has not made the Palestinians more amenable to peace. On the contrary, the more Washington backs away from the Israelis, the more likely Abbas (not to mention his Hamas rivals who rule Gaza and threaten his hold on the West Bank) is to stand pat and wait for the Americans to deliver more Israeli concessions to him on a silver platter. And given that leftist Jewish groups, who may well have the ear of Obama and his intimates, are calling for more pressure on Israel, supposedly for its own good, there is every reason to believe that any involvement by the president in the talks will be to Israel’s detriment.

Far from being a formula for peace, Obama’s involvement and his hectoring of Israel may set in motion a chain of events that, like the failure of Bill Clinton’s Camp David summit, may instigate a new campaign of Palestinian violence. Photos such as the one taken today may nurture the illusion that Obama is helping to nudge the Middle East on its way to peace. But the price for such heightened expectations, in the absence of any real change of heart about the need for mutual recognition of Israel on the part of the Arab and Muslim worlds, may be terrible indeed.

Israel-Palestine: Obama Wants "Final Status" Negotiations Now

In Aluf Benn's words: Obama "read his statement as a command directed at the two sides," a command to get the final negotiations moving. The sooner the better.

Well, let's hope Obama has finally learned something from his failed first round. It does no good for a great power to lecture people on what they "must" do and issue ostensible "commands" if they are not prepared to back up their imperatives with some kind of forceful response in the case of failure to comply. If you don't walk the walk after talking the talk, you only make yourself look weaker and more laughable, and diminish the credibility and influence of your words.

The President has directed the parties to come to Washington, and has asked the Secretary of State to deliver a status report in mid-October. That's very soon. Now MJ, here's what I need to know from you: What practical penalties or sanctions are you and your organization prepared to back if the Secretary of State reports unsatisfactory progress by either the Palestinians or the Israelis?

I believe several of us asked you about this last time, when you seemed dazzled and overly impressed with Obama's big words and commanding tone on the settlements. And I don't recall that you were willing to endorse any specific sanctions. That seems similar to the Obama administration, which doesn't seem to have been prepared with any contingency plan in case the Israelis decided not to treat Obama's authoritative-sounding pronouncements on settlements as a third tablet of commandments, and decided just to say "no" instead.

'As for intention, the Israeli intention is clear; we don't need to listen to what Israel says, just watch what they've done and are doing. Israel wants the best land and resources, the water and the fertile plains; they want to rob the Palestinians of East Jerusalem, expelling them from their homes and neighbourhoods. Israel continues to expand the illegal settlements on the West Bank and build infrastructure connecting these outposts to the rest of Jerusalem. All the while they demolish Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem and carry out excavations undermining their foundations. They block Palestinian roads and cut them of from their land and villages. The Israelis are not offering Palestinians a viable state; they want to herd them into 3 separate, disconnected Bantustans.

We often hear the refrain, "Israel doesnt target civilians." In the context of a large-scale military assault on the densely populated city of Gaza, this is mendacious. Repeat that lie to 4 year-old Samer Abed Rabbo who in all likelihood will spend the rest of her life in a wheelchair, a quadriplegic, after her spine was smashed with an Israeli bullet. The same incident left her two sisters, Amal, 2, and Suad, 8, dead - shot and killed by Israeli soldiers. First the tanks shelled their house, and then, as their grandmother led them outside waving a white flag, they were spattered with Israeli machine gun fire. The Israeli soldiers had murdered Amal and Suad, while little Samer was left hanging to life by a thread. As she lay in the dirt barely breathing, the tanks rolled on to the next target, the Israeli soldiers displaying a callous disregard for Palestinian lives.

All killing of civilians is reprehensible. But the greatest obstacle to peace is Israel.'

Avi Shlaim, Oxford Professor of International Relations writing in the Guardian.

The idea that anything will ever change without serious sanctions against Israel is preposterous. What possible motive would Israel have for changing a policy that allows it to continue to appropriate Palestinian land and marginalize its Arab population? Israel's goal is to maximize its land and minimize its Arabs. The long term plan is to settle most of the good Palestinian lands and then create some kind of unsustainable Bantustan on marginal land for the Arabs, with the hope that over time the impoverished, demoralized Palestinians will emigrate to Arab countries. This is clearly Israel's plan and it's working fabulously well. Why would Israel change a thing without some kind of pressure from the international community? The reality is blatantly obvious, but we have a bunch of babbling fools here who like to delude themselves into thinking that the "peace process" and "roadmap" are something more than a convenient cover for an Israeli government that wants to maintain what it sees as a highly desirable status quo but knows that projecting an image of wanting change is essential to keeping the international community at bay.

If MJ really wants change, he must work for sanctions against Israel. Anything short of that is just embarrassing childishness.