One upon a time, Israel's survival depended on aid and technology from America. It now runs both ways as the U.S. relies on Israeli intelligence quite a bit. So it would seem Israel has moved from a dependent relationship with the U.S. to one of mutual dependence - or so I've been told.

Is this Netanyahu’s thinking, and based on this, does he figure he's in the driver's seat to say no to Obama on the settlements issue and could live easily with the minor consequences?

Ah, but one flaw in this thinking may be that while Israel doesn't really face strategic issues it can’t handle now, it could in the future. Remember Iran: Netanyahu has been urging action against that state and has to know, or better understand - action is impossible without U.S. involvement, and or support.

If Netanyahy and his right wing give the middle finger salute to the Obama administration, this very well could create a problem, since the Israeli center and left might not tolerate it, as this might be seen as a breach with the U.S. and could create a crisis which could bring Netanyahu's government down.

What I think is also missed here is America's greatest concern has to be Iraq and Afghanistan at the moment, which is where Obama needs his leverage with the Muslim states, and our American president may be backing Netanyahu into a corner by playing him against the Israeli center and right, knowing Israel is a fragmented country politically.

Keep in mind, the Israeli psyche has always been about having good relations with America. Those in the center and to the left, in Israel, must see these issues may be growing into a major breach between Israel and America.

The bottom line is: if Barack can force Binyamin to concede on the settlements issue, then he will break the back of the Israeli right and open the door to a settlement of the two-state solution as well. And even if the Palestinians rejected or undermined any agreements, Obama will be still be seen in a good light by Muslim nations, and keeps his leverage to help him with America's bigger problem of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Thoughtful post.

But what's the deal with this emphasis on being "seen in a good light by Muslim nations." What does this look like, and what value does it have? Not to mention it's a mugs game: are we too redo our foreign policy every time a Muslim nation determines that the "light" is not "good".

Iran and Turkey are the keys to long term stability in Iraq, not the Arab states. In the former case this is a grave concern given that all our levers are tied up with the profileration issue.

As for Afghanistan there's even less implication of the Arab states. The fight has been taken to the enemy's home in Pakistan. From here the only possible outcome is defeat for the enemy (with the caveat that they could rebuild in the long term in the ungoverned parts of Africa).

One example Marcus61, has been enlisting Saudi Arabia to get the Pakistan Taliban to part ways with al-Qaeda and convincing them to drive a wedge between Pakistani militants and their foreign "guests."

Pakistan may be al-Qaeda's final battleground, and any threat to their continued haven in Pakistan obviously poses a clear danger to them - especially if the Saudis continue to play a pivotal role in persuading the more "softer" Taliban in Afghanistan to also turn against them.

By creating good will with a firm stance on the Israeli settlement issue, will give America some leverage that is important with the behind the scenes work that coninsides with the on-going military operations.

The Saudis have been on side against the Taliban and AQ for a while now: they were feeling the heat at home from local extremists and responded with alacrity.

No question you are correct Marcus61. We have differances, but at the same time share that common interest among several others, i.e., Iran. What is important is where it all leads in the end for the United States.

Bluntly, screw the Royal Kingdom, but we do need their and several other ME states assistance, and having leverage through whatever means is important - be that only good will - so be it.

Thanks, good comments! : - )

As near as I can tell the status quo has always been that the United States would oppose settlements formally but that this would not evolve into a fundamental disagreement, and it seems like "my" new president has decided to change the game plan by saying we will no longer accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements?

My question is, how much support is there in the United States for settlements on the West Bank? Can you or anyone tell me?

And why did you decide to use Tyrtaios as a handle?

Why would most Americans really care about some trailer parks on the other side of the world, built on land 1/4 the size of the county they live in? They are just symbolic and don't matter a whit, either way, in the real history of the world.