"...what is intriguing is public opinion in America has swung in different directions, if I recall correctly, on this issue, yet it seems even in times of favorable public opinion, progress has been slow and minimal at best. Captain, I don't think Americans have ever come FULLY in terms with the liberal, Leftist view of the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, even though they may have swung to the Left to some degree at some points. In recent times, the closest any American administration came towards accepting those Leftist views with a willingness to act upon them was perhaps during the tenures of senior Bush and Clinton. Madrid Conference followed by Oslo Accords (1992-93) and Wye River Agreements (1999) were the respective prizes for that. The best ever hope of a meaningful peace between the two sides also came during President Clinton's tenure -- even though Camp David Summit of 2000 ultimately failed to reach an aggreement, the warring sides actually came very close to a real deal. More on this a bit later. One astoundingly interesting irony of the peace processes: It is normally a hardlinet leadership who, for whatever reasons, may have decided to adopt some liberal policies can actually deliver well in times of crucial decision making. Either due to sheer attrition and battle fatigue, or due to a genuine and profound change of heart, when a Rightist decides to change course, we can hope for the best, better than when a Leftist tries the same, with his/her own agenda. From the Israeli side: Golda Meir, Benin, Shamir, Natanhayu, Sharon, all hardline Likud members, are some of those who can be credited for one or another very important steps towards peace with the Palestinians. Rabin, a Labour but with a hardline past of being a harsh army general, also did well. Barak, Peres, the "softies" failed. I suspect this is due to the fact that the "softies" need to prove themselves when it comes to national security, which inevitably harms the peace process because in the process of proving themselves, they'd have to take uncompromising positions more often than not. On the contrary, the hardliners have a whole of their past to prove their sincerity to national security, and they need not worry about the public questioning their motives during peace talks. Therefore, if they can hammer a deal (ironically by adopting liberal principles), it is normally easier for them to sell it to their respective public -- liberals back home would accept it anyway because it was originally their agenda, and the hardliners would have no choice but to accept it grudgingly because it comes from one of their own. Back to the US policies and what I think would be an ideal situation to hope for a lasting peace in between the Israelis and the Palestinians...ब्रेक के बाद! :D