It's not clear to me the dire nature of this relative to Obama's other foreign policy disasters: Iran just rejected the West's nuclear deal, putting his policy of engagement in shambles, there are leftist dictatorships sprouting up again in Latin America, with Ortega once again becoming dictator of Nicaragua, and Obama seemingly intent on establishing Zelaya as dictator of Honduras, you have countries dropping the dollar all over, and you have Afghanistan and Pakistan falling apart, with even the Europeans pleading with Obama to man up and show some leadership on the war (most recently in the German magazine Spiegel). About the only good news is every time the North Koreans try to pee on Obama's leg by testing their missiles, they can't seem to get it right.

So, the Jews and Arabs still hate each other. And yes, Obama's failed there, too. I'd rather have him focus on other things right now.

Neither side seems remotely ready or willing to negotiate. So, here's my question -- if you're Barack Obama, what do you do at this juncture? Is this one of those moments when all sides might be better off staring into the abyss of abject noncooperation?

It's really hard to say, at this point. Obama has no good options, and he'll be criticized heavily for whatever he does. If he were to try and seriously punish Israel on the settlements issue, he'll be attacked at home, and Congress will probably just pass a renewal of aid and support over his veto. If he were to try and pressure Abu Mazen, Mazen might use it as an excuse to rally support in defiance - or worse, take it as a sign of writing on the wall and run off to the French Riviera. If he does nothing, everybody and their dog will say he's just like Bush, not giving the issue the attention it deserves, and the Arabs will say that he doesn't really care about the Palestinians and their statehood - he's just a Zionist-supporter like all US Presidents.

My personal opinion is that it would probably be best if the Palestinians and the Israelis were to have another spat, whether that be the Third Intifada, or what. It would be bloody, but it would also shove the costs of potential actions (whether resistance or further settlement) right in the faces of the potential parties.

Inaction might be another idea - the US generally hasn't been too hot at actually starting up a peace process between Israel and other groups. Although we heavily promoted the Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt, that was only after the two had been negotiating in secret for a while. Same with the Oslo Accords.

Mr. Drezner writes "Neither side seems remotely ready or willing to negotiate."

I disagree, you are blaming Israel and the PA for a mistake that the Obama administration made by pursuing negotiations so publicly.

The public nature of the shuttle diplomacy putting every action under scrutiny is fatal. Neither side wants to be seen as blinking first.

If Netanyahu had made concessions such as the complete settlement freeze, the coalition would have collapsed and then he would not be in a position to move forward in negotiations.

If negotiations preceded in private Netanyahu could present the peace agreement as a fait accompli and count on the opposition to support the agreement. Even if the coalition fell apart from Netanyahu's personal point of view his stature would only be improved and he would most likely be re-elected.

Abbas faces similar problems any concessions he makes in public short of a final agreement will make him appear weak and vulnerable to critics particularly Hamas.

An agreement worked out in advance in secret could then bring other Arab governments on board shielding Abbas to some degree.

Why not do nothing simply nothing. Do not give 3 billion dollars in developmental help, abstain from voting in UN about the Goldstone Report and its like, let Israel import weapons from USA on the same conditions as any other non Nato member and so on.

Just declare that USAs intent on defending Israel as a independent state is official*, let Israel sail unsupported, and try to see, if they then will try one of the many peace proposals there is.

*As far I remember, this is not the case. correct me if im wrong.

What would happen if they stay in status quo?

Israel would still enjoy overwhelming power while I am not sure Hamas can do anything about it even if Hamas controls both cities. Last Gaza war effectively taught Hamas a lesson that a rational Hamas leader won't attack again in a near future.

Other mid east countries are in US's pocket. Egypt and Saudi Arabia both have no incentives to move beyond their current positions without US's pushing. I do not think that they get any problems with the status quo. Syria is weak and cannot do anything without Iran's back. But Iran is weak too due to its domestic conflict and NUKE talk. Lebanon is in a subtle balance that Hezbollah probably has more than enough on its plate.

From a game theory point of view, status quo in Israel and Palestine situation is bad for local people, especially for Palestinian. But for all other parties, there are no significant gains if they move away from status quo and there are no huge loss if they do not move. It is an equilibrium, a suboptimal and short term one of course.

Now what will happen in the long run I do not know. In the long run we all die. But I know that muslim world might become more hostile toward US than it would have been if the deal were reached. However impacts of such hostility is unclear to me, if US does not do anything stupid like invading Iraq in the first place.

Honest, strongly sourced (linked), humble, and relevant. This type of post scares the polemicists. They won't touch it. Bravo, and keep it up.

I really wish we were in a period of time when we could simply give one side a few hundred million dollars and all the guns they need and say "See those rivals of yours? Go wipe them out." Of course given Fatah's security and domestic record we'd have no guarantees of success.

I wondered back in the spring whether the Obama administration had thought more than a move or two ahead about the Middle East.

President Obama did, I thought, take the appropriate line on the settlements issue in his Cairo speech, but he did it in a way that appeared to assume that taking the position in a well-received speech would be enough. I put that down to his difficulty transitioning from the all-consuming task of running for office to the equally all-consuming task of being President. Obama has done better making that transition than some new Presidents, not as well as some others, and tripped up in this area.

What's done is done, as far as that goes. The Netanyahu government's position was never going to be much different than it is, regardless of how the settlements issue was raised by Washington. The combination of Netanyahu himself and the Israeli political factions supporting his government makes it one of the more unreasonable in Israeli history, but it is also true that the combination of undisguised Arab hostility with obvious Arab impotence generally produces particularly unreasonable Israel governments content to keep to whatever the status quo happens to be at the time. It's no accident that the Arab leader who got the most results negotiating with the Israelis was Anwar Sadat.

A complicating factor facing Obama is the competition for votes and financial support from American admirers of Israel by candidates from both parties. Obama cannot afford to ignore this; as the first Democratic President after a long period of Republican dominance in Washington he probably has more leverage among Democratic supporters of Israel than it appears, but Congressional Democrats are understandably nervous about appearing to be less "pro-Israel" than Republicans still taking cues from a Republican President who frankly equated American interests with those of Israel on almost every issue.

Faced with this unpromising situation, Obama's best course is one of unyielding patience. He was right, in Cairo, about Israeli settlements on the West Bank. So far from moving away from that position, his spokesmen should reiterate it, emphasizing in particular that the settlements issue has nothing to do with the Iranian threat with which the Netanyahu government would prefer to occupy Washington's entire attention. Following this course will prompt frequent objections from Tel Aviv, which is fine.

America's immediate interest is to dissipate the perception in Muslim and especially Arab countries that it will automatically support any position the Israeli government chooses to take. A peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians would be a fine thing, but it isn't going to happen in the next couple of years. A peace process would be positive for all concerned, but the conditions for it don't exist right now. Obama should seek to change that when he can change it; since he can't at the moment, he needs to emphasize the primacy of American interests and draw attention to the points at which they differ from the current Israeli government's policies.

This course will frustrate Arabs wanting to resolve the Palestinian issue now, anger Israelis used to uncritical support from Washington, and trouble Israel's Democratic supporters in the United States. In the long run, though, Israel needs America much more than America needs Israel. Notwithstanding Netanyahu's ability to withstand American pressure on the crucial settlements issue for the moment, this remains Obama's trump card. Provided he is not spooked into rash action in diplomacy or intimidated by the domestic politics of the issue, he should be able over time to force Israeli acquiesence to American priorities.

It is not that Palestine side is any easy, but Israel is the real deal maker here. In past Arafat and Palestine went back on their agreements and the deal collapsed is true. But being a dominant force, it is again Israel which will have to take the initiative.

So from White House point of view, it is a bit provocative idea so hold on, the deal to be made is - address Iran issue and get Israel to stop settlements. With Iran rejecting offer to ship enriched uranium outside Iran, that plan has come to naught. But then nothing is easy in that region. As long as Iran is brought in line (military action as the next step?); there can be some hope that Israel adopts moderation.

"I do know that sometimes agreements cannot be reached unless adversaries get a better appreciation of the counterfactual of no agreement. It might cause both the Israelis and the Palestinians to recognize that they are stuck with each other."

Huh? The Israelis and the Palestinians have been dealing with the "factual" (not the counterfactual) of "no agreement" for, what 50+ years?

The idea that they will get a "better appreciation" of what this entails is ludicrous. It entails exactly what the situation has been for the past XX years - fighting, death, terrorism, international pariah status, etc. etc. etc.

It is hard to believe that Drezner thinks the sides don't already understand all of the implications of not coming to an agreement.

Gideon Levy had (as usual) a great columb in Ha'artez today that answers your question succinctly, its title is "America, stop sucking up to Israel".

So for example demanding Netanyahu stop expanding settlements in East Jerusalem and continuing a policy that is effectively ethnic cleansing, then when he says "no", sending Hillary Clinton over to Israel to praise him for restraint... yeah thats not helpful in the least. George H.W. Bush cut off loan guarantees when Yitzhak Shamir ignored his demands to stop settlements, and the so-called Israel Lobby was powerless to stop that (this the days before J Street.) What Obama needs is the audacity of common sense. No one will, nor should, take him at his word that he wants settlements to end if he is going to continue funding for them and has not plans to stop.

Foreign policy for the Middle East is a tricky task. No American presidents have done it right in the past. That doesn't mean that their foreign policies are outright, useless. Foreign policy in that region of the world is measured and judged by the seriousness of its attempt at reaching a particular result and not of the result itself. The appointment of Mr Netanyahu as prime minister of Israel, is certainly a problem for the hope of peace. He is prepared to go to war with the Palestinians and the rest of the Arabs. He does not believe in proportionate responses to attacks on Israel by the Hamas or Hizbollah. He will refuse to talk to his enemies and friends, once a crisis starts. We cannot expect Obama to be different from past presidents on the Middle East issue. He will have to look at the facts afresh and come up with his own method of formulation. I suppose that 'double down' means giving all of your attention on something and forget the rest. Yes, Obama should do that on the Middle East. But he can't do that for too long. He still have Afghanistan, Europe, Russia, China, North Korea, Somali pirates, nuclear weapons and domestic issues to take care of. Four years is such a short time for a President.