Barack Obama came to Israel and Palestine, saw what he wanted to see, and conquered the mainstream media with his eloquent words. U.S. and Israeli journalists called it a dream trip: a charismatic world leader taking charge of the Mideast peace process.

While visiting Israel, Obama did not limit himself to the standard rhetorical niceties. He went over the heads of politicians and appealed directly to the Israeli public, especially the young, to make his case for a more flexible approach to negotiating with Palestinians.

Tthe best Obama can do, in the short term, is attempt to speak directly to both peoples reasserting his commitment to them and to a peaceful future in an effort to change the discourse in both societies away from the cynicism and hardline views that have made progress toward peace so difficult.

Israel's hysteria and America's arm-twisting against the resolution gave the Palestinians a victory, a victory that the United States and Israel both elevated to historic proportions.

It may still be possible to imagine a just political resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But, in the real world, politics is not the work of our imagination.

I certainly do not believe that Obama, in any way, puts Israel's interests on par with that of the United States. Not even close. Frankly, I don't think the Republicans do either.

To acknowledge the occupation is to recognize the Palestinians; not as terrorists or poseurs, not as inventions, but as full, flesh and blood human beings, as entitled to their rights as we are to ours.

Any doubt we might have that the Israeli right has lost its mind should be eliminated by the latest column from one of its most prominent media figures, Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post .

President Obama needs to match tough military decisions with equally tough political ones that are not popular with some constituencies but are very much in the American national interest.

President Obama's speech to the General Assembly succeeded in making clear why the Palestinians had no choice but to take their statehood bid to the UN and why the United States can no longer pretend to be an "honest broker" in the conflict.

It is absurd and unjust that the only party under pressure to accept preconditions to peace talks is the one party that has already said it is willing to return to peace talks "tomorrow morning."

As Gabriela Shalev reminds us, it's foolish to assume that Obama is merely a puppet with Netanyahu pulling the strings. Her two years at the UN surely taught her that the real power is in Washington, not Jerusalem.

WASHINGTON -- In a relatively rare sign of bipartisan collaboration on the Israel-Palestine conflict, a group of Democratic and Republican advocates a...

President Obama's address needlessly stepped on its own core message by opening yet another inopportune rift with the Israeli government on the eve of Benjamin Netanyahu's meeting with the president.

For the past six months it has been clear in the region that George Mitchell practically made the decision to quit once it was clear his advice was no longer being heeded in the White House.

Since the chance of Israel and Palestine negotiating on their own is somewhere below zero, there's growing talk about Obama going to Jerusalem and giving a speech that presents his own peace plan.

Pressing the administration to offer a concrete peace plan, starting with a map of the new Palestinian state's borders, is one useful strategy among many that can lead to a just peace.

Understanding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict requires not only a grasp of cold facts and statistics, but an understanding of the daily experience of the real people who live on each side. I spoke to Palestinians on a recent trip.

Schleifer: I am not giving up on Obama or on the direct negotiations he has tried to revive. Aslan: Is any other way to describe the present state of affairs other than utter failure?