A long view of Middle East diplomacy.

I guess I've been watching the Middle East 'Peace process,' out of the corner of my metaphorical eye on and off since the 1970s. One of my early observations was that intensive effort toward that end were "usually" left to the tail end of two term Presidencies. From the point of view of Israel and Palestine, we were not unlike an absentee landlord, who didn't show up for long periods of time, and then turned up at random moments to demand long over due political capitol "rent," in full with little "warning." I believe that Bush 43 has broken that mold by keeping his people involved in the process in an ongoing manner since very early in his administration. Please feel free to check my logic at associated Google search. In a wider view, we have had several good Secretaries of State spend time there, James Baker not least of all. To be pedantic, he was the architect of Bush 41's coalition against Iraq over the Kuwait/Desert Storm affair. The one's I consider "good," were Kissinger, Powell, Baker, Rice, and Albright. Of these, Albright alone bucks the trend of an NSA background. They seem to have been beset by a repeating problem: Every new Administration has granted the Middle East a sort of "clean diplomatic slate." This amounts to a sort of political amnesty or forgiveness. At worst, the Middle East has had to wait only for a change of party to obtain a renewal of this license. By contrast, for their part, Islamic Clerics do not show any precedent for forgiveness. As a result, the "entire Middle East," takes every fresh slate, and goes back to the 1400's when Islam started and begins rehashing every political offense committed against them in detail, from that date to present. Even our best Secretaries of State have been confronted with explaining to a compassionate President that the Middle East is being "unreasonable," to understate a problem :-) I have contemplated a coherent Middle East policy more than once, and I do not know the answer. The best suggestion I have heard, is to take the opportunity of the Iraq withdrawal to purchase a permanent pied-a-terre on that small sliver of Coast that they have for a harbor. This might satisfy a Republican Congress on a compromise basis, even as President Elect Obama undertakes the commitment of his platform to withdraw. This saves money horse trading with Saudi Arabia, and may change the complexion of our problem. I would not neglect to mention in appropriate context that some of the best horses in the world are Arabians. I am concerned as well, that Egypt may be preening itself in the mirror of the press that they are collecting tribute from us, since they get the lions share of Middle East humanitarian aid. I even suggested a radical solution to my Congressional Representative. I have not had a chance to discuss it in an appropriately educated and informed social setting. In Israel, the Gaza/West Bank situation has developed into a circumstance that lends itself to a solution that may not be worth the trade offs, although it is politically "easy." Israel constantly has to watch the Gaza - West Bank traffic for suicide bombers. If the Fatah party in West Bank were to coalesce into Fatahstan, and the Hamas party of Gaza were to coalesce into Hamastan, this would solve the present issue of traffic, in face of the future issue of "No Two Party System." I don't know if Hamas is Shia or Sunni, but making them work together if probably preferable. My final analysis is that asymmetric warfare is solved on the oldest strategy of all: Divide and Conquer. This is simply unpalatable to the American mind.