Peace Between Palestinians and Israelis - Maybe?

President Obama in his speech this week said that peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis should be based on pre-1967 borders. Such a stand is completely unacceptable to the Israelis, but it serves a very important purpose as a negotiating ploy. There has been no progress toward peace because there has been little incentive for the Israelis to move in that direction. They know that they will have to give up some valuable and sentimentally priceless things such as some portion of Jerusalem and feelings of having control over the situation. Obama's talking about pre-1967 borders may just be the straw that breaks the camel's back and makes Israel realize that eternal delays may lead to a less satisfactory outcome in the negotiations. (See my book, DECISION TIME! Better Decisions for a Better Life for negotiation techniques and stages http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/60929.)
Perhaps Israel will respond to the threat of a less-desirable border outcome by moving toward earlier resolution of the negotiation stalemate on the condition that current or compromise borders are the end result. President Obama is not a party to the negotiations, but his words automatically influence the negotiation stances of both sides.

Middle East Solidarity and Fragmentation

The winds of change that are sweeping middle eastern countries may be just the beginning of turbulence with unknown consequences. It is relatively easy to get a population fired up against the status quo and an unpopular, authoritarian leader. During the process of such an attempted or successful overthrow of a government, the populace is essentially united because everyone wants the current situation to change. As soon as such a movement becomes successful, however, it becomes dangerous to all concerned, because unity will disappear as different segments of society push for their own agendas. This is the point at which power grabs and civil wars develop. The initial jubilation at overthrowing an authoritarian regime may be replaced by a lengthy period of groups jockeying for position and attempting to manipulate each other. External governments would be wise to be nonspecific in their gestures and declarations of support because they will not know nor be able to influence the final configuration of power centers for a long time to come. Enthusiastically backing a losing group may be at least as unwise as taking no public stance on the political upheaval process.