It thinks the issue of Palestinian statehood has little effect on broader American concerns

The above fragment caught my eye for the slight bizarre-ity of it. Since when does Israel have anything resembling a legitimate say in determining what are to be considered "broader American concerns"?

The Israel Palestinian issue is not central to wider regional policy issues. It is the result of the geopolitical tensions posed by Iran and Saudi Arabia. Iran funds Hezbollah in Syria and Hamas in the West Bank as a proxy battle, but does not have a genuine interest in the Israel Palestinian issue despite what Ahmedinajad may say about eviserating Israel. Iran is more concerned with the Hashemite Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the power links to the United States through oil in the Gulf. The Sunni/Shia divide in the Iran and Saudi relationship is palpable, but it can be overcome through diplomacy. There does have to be a shift in U.S foreign policy focus to do so. Currently, the United States is asking Iran not to produce nuclear weapons, despite having allowed India and Pakistan ( a near failed state) to do so. It is crafting U.N. sanctions with China, EU and Russia all of whom (U.S. included) have very large business interests in Iran. And while Israel and the United States do not take military action off the table against Iran, the futility of such an endeavor should be clear. U.S. foreign policy should look to use diplomatic tools to craft shared outcomes for Iran and Saudi Arabia to have meaningful roles in the Middle East. The resolution of that divide should go a long way to resolving the Israel Palestinian issue.

If the recommenations above are succesful, a less relevant and Iranian funded Hamas would seek the political center. If Fatah would embrace a unity party at that point, they may be able to create a coalition to run an independent Palestine. If not, I feel we are in for more generational hoping. In short......Inshallah!!

"Current Palestinian leadership"? The guys in the West Bank seem more competent than in the past, and might be able to run a state in the West Bank. But how can they run a state in Gaza, given the hostility with Hamas. Is the real alternative now a 3-state solution, perhaps with Gaza loosely federated with Egypt and the West Bank with Jordan? However important the issue may be in the Mideast, I don't see how negotiations go anywhere without somehow handling Hamas.

1) Yes, naturally. Israel and Turkey have kept a running feud since Cast Lead wich Erdogan saw as a direct insult. Israel just dishonored Dubai in public as well, and the UAE are central in logistics for Iraq and Afghanistan. By openly insulting these kay players in the current alliance-framework Israel acts like a loose cannon. For those of us who follow this closely and read Haaretz/ Jerusalem Post, it seems obvious that Israel has made it no secret that they intend to sabotage all US attempts in the months following Cairo. This again sends a signal to the Arab nations of US impotence, and feeds the myths that the Israel lobby is almighty. Wich is a very commong view among educated folks in the allied arab nations.

2) No, not yet. But if the Quartets plan of a unilateral Palestinian state in 1 1/2 year becomes a reality, then a lot of education of civil service officials can be done, and oversight programs kicked into place. SUch a nation would have to be heavily internationally funded and structured anyways, with an autonome powergrid and so on. And that means training lots of pal engineers. So its a 5-year project that got passed under the noise of the US/Israel brouhaha by the Quartet.

1) Do you believe that the Israel/Palestine issue is central to wider regional policy concerns?
Yes. As the middle-east relates to the US. We cannot mediate the issues as long as we are seen as taking sides and Israel will never allow us to do otherwise. Whenever we come close to a balanced approach Israel escalates the tensions. Of course those on the other side who want no peace does the same. The issue is central because we end up being seen as an intruder so we become the great Satan to those easily swayed.

2) Is the current Palestinian leadership capable of running an independent Palestine?
They are indeed capable but like any country with large (not necessarily huge) numbers of agitators have a tough struggle.

My Question - If Israel wants to build in Palestine why not agree to build one Palestinian home for every Jewish settlement home in Palestinian territory and help develop Palestinian business and the economy to help create a more stable place for the people of Palestine?

It might be best if we took seriously something Arabs have said consistently for over 40 years: the Israeli-Palestinian issue is central to the way they think about relations with the West. It is therefore an important factor in the West's relations with them. The close relationship between the United States and Israel makes this issue especially difficult for us.

It is no more than realistic to take seriously two other facts of life in this part of the world. One is that the Palestinian factions, which would fall on one another in an instant if Israel disappeared tomorrow, are for that reason unlikely to be able to sustain a government for any length of time. The other is that the Palestinians' shortcomings as to governance are all but irrelevant to the Israeli government, which pursues expansion of settlements and slow-rolling of the peace process because these are necessary to appease factions in Israeli politics uninterested in any peace that does not involve further appropriation of land on the West Bank.

Protracted tension between Israel and the United States is unhealthy for Israel. It does have some advantages for us in the current circumstances. At some point, the Palestinians will have to confront their delusions and the Israelis their extremists, but in the short term it is necessary for the United States to extricate itself from the position of being blamed for Israeli policies, primarily with regard to settlements, that advance no American interest.

1) it has been clear for decades that what happens in the holy land has its ramifications for the surrounding countries and even further. it is one of the great injustices of our time and it has proven to fuel extremism time and time again. wars have raged for it last century as they have raged this one (lebanon, gaza) the whole problem has been festering so long that a true solution is further away than ever. there is no-one left to blame, both parties have become victims, both have become terrorists. a two-state solution is not the way to solve the problem, it can't. Israel won't allow Palestine to become a true nation in the very meaning of the word and neither will the palestines be satisfied with the leftovers they'll receive.
a two state solution will leave the palestinians humiliated in the eyes of their muslim brothers. and they will keep resenting israel (and the US) for that. the palestinians will leave the table with barely nothing if they wish to persue the two-state solution.
2) the question if their leaders are qualified enough to run a country won't matter, it'll barely be a country.

if everyone truly wishes peace than they should learn to live together in one nation with equal rights. the jewish state will be gone but the jewish people will finally be safe and secure. the palestinians won't have their own land but they'll at least be able to live, prosper and participate in a well functioning state. either everybody shares the land or nobody gets it.