Arrrrrrrrrgh! Watching nearly an hour long interview is not on my agenda today! But I did watch the snippets presented early on. Both Carter and Perez were on the dot, I think. More on this later when I have had the time to review the entire show. El Capitan, on your comments above: I don't think the US' role in the Middle Eastern peace process is exagerated at all. As the only global Super Power, with its kinship to Israel beyond anyone's wildest dreams, coupled with the fact that it still enjoys strong relationship with several Arab states that matter (Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, in particular), I believe US is in a profoundly unique position to shape the future of peace process between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The problem thus far, however, has been with the US' will, rather than it's ability. US' will to adopt a certain approach to bringing lasting peace in the region has been distorted by it's unwillingness to listen and act upon the suggestions from the Left. Hardline, militaristic approach is still the back bone of US's policies, and often they try to get away with it by labeling the Left "weak," with a great degree of success, I am afraid. Weakness, however, they do not realize, stems from the very radicalism they see as strentgh. If the US admisnistrations were to abandone radicalism, and seek to establish meaningful but seemingly rocky relationships with it's enemies based on dialogue and eagerness to better understand the latter, and were to balance their relationship with Israel with that of Palestinians, I don't think a permanent peace in the Middle East is far fetched. Of course, one need not act upon instances of terrorism with such flexibility that the perpetrators get away with complete impunity. Some degree of harshness is required, but that harshness need not necessarily mean resorting to collective punishment. Pinpoint the perpetrators, and crush them! I am all for it. But do undertsnad that one way of crushing the terrorists is to turn their own people against them. Collective punishment only radicalizes the entire society, which, in turn, fuels the insurgency further. hence the perpetual failure, despite the eargernbess to see thourgh a permanent peace. You are right that it will probably take anormous amount of patience, given the conflict is deep rooted in centuries of rivalry between the Jews and the Arabs. However, I choose to remain optimistic. This is because I see the "soft approach" of the Left slowly but surely gaining strength within the American public; and sooner or later, any US administration would have no choice but to succumb to the ultimate truth and humanity, to which the Left is currently beholden. If I or anyone else had a magic formula to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, he or she would make a far better candidate for Nobel Peace Prize than our own Girija Prasad Koirala (pun intended!). Nevertheless, having closely studied the Middle East during my undergraduate years, I am of the opinion that if the US was to adopt a "softer" approach, the world would have gone a long, long way towards a lasting peace in the region. Time and tide are against radicalism, be that of the US or the Islamic Fundamentalists. Even Hamas has realized -- though they seem not too fond of making it known -- that their radicalism has failed themselves and their people. Israel has gone through similar realization. Now it is upto the US to accept the reality, and make constructive dialogue possible between themselves and their enemies. The benefits of a dialogue and sincere attempts to understand the other side -- with strength -- far outweighs the perceived benefits of no dialogue, with the sole reliance on "strength". The real strength, once again, does not come from militaristic radicalism. The real strength is in the ability to envision permanent peace, through whatever means. मानवता त सत्यतामा आधारित धैर्यपूर्ण साहस नै सबैभन्दा ठुलो बल हो।