I don't think 9/11 was the turning point in US' policy on the Middle East. The desire to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was always there, albeit the hard questions remained on the issue of HOW. Stable Middles East was always seen as a key US interest by almost every US administration since the Palestinian conflict took a huge turn for the worst after the creation of Israel in 1947. Therefore, we can see that US has always played a key role in every step towards possible peace in the region. In recent times, major US efforts to bring peace in the Middlle East dates back to the early nineties, soon after the first Gulf War. Starting with the Madrid Conference, the senior Bush administration pushed hard for, and ultimately realized the Madrid Conference, which subsequently led to Oslo Accords in 1993, signed by the then Israeli PM Rabin and PLO leader Arafat. That was the beginning of what I call a "softer" approach to crisis resolution, the first time the US unofficially recognized the "two state solution" as a key to success in building peace in the region. What 9/11 did, instead, was that it radicalized the Americans. And this radicalization, unfortunately, compelled them to temporarily abandone the "softer" approach to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, vis-a-vis the Palestinian perspective. Now, it is the agonizing experience in Iraq that is making them rethink their post 9/11 policies, and perhaps will make them re-embrace the "soft" approach. The impeccable need to approach the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without the pro-Israeli, militaristic, Rightist lens was always advocated by those on the Left, since long before even the Madrid Conference. In this particular issue, the Left was on the side of humanity, the truth, therefore, it is now beginning to show signs of prevailing. The Rightist theory of "tyranny-against-tyranny" has no place in modern times, and deespite some back and forth, the ultimately win will be bestowed on those who are on the side of humanity. Not only in the Israeli-Palestinian issue, but my observation is that even on other social issues, the society in its entirety moving towards the current Left is inevitable. The current Rightists will try -- and they may even seem to succeed at times -- in putting breaks (or sometimes even pull it backwards) on this movement towards the current Left, but the reality is that the truth sides with the current Left, the ultimate victory for which is unquestionable in my opinion. This is not to say that I envision the world in unison with the Left in the future. Differences, and the fierce competition within, which, goes without saying that it's natural, will remain. But the focus, issues, shapes, and forms would have changed. Sooner or later, the current Left would have won over the current Right, but a new Left and a new Right would have been created. My five bucks! Buy me some beers too, Iso! :)