Stratfor's George Friedman presents a two-state solution to the conflict over Zionism as inherently unreachable, but argues that the appearance of progress on the front is in the interests of Israel and the pro-Israel Arab dictatorships. He is right about this and accurate in his description of the play-acting on the issue whose objective is to accomplish nothing but a continuation of the status quo while presenting the appearance of progress.
The pro-Israel dictatorships are relics of the colonial era that depend for their existence on the continued unresolved status of the struggle over Zionism. A solution either way would end the unnatural situation in which the world's preeminent power has an inherent interest in a large group of people, the Arabs, living under unrepresentative regimes. Without that interest of the US in their sustenance, natural processes would either quickly or gradually remove them from power, and would have generations ago.
I wonder to what degree the defeat of the US effort, ultimately largely on Israel's behalf, to contain Iran will have on the sustainability of the essentially transparent farce Friedman describes. When Western reporters describe secret expressions of alarm from Arab sources, they are likely describing concern over this question.
Westerners like Friedman, citizens of essentially democratic countries with competitive and effective political processes, should feel ashamed of themselves for their open identification with the needs of Arab dictatorships to continue repressing their subjects, but do not because of their sentimental attachment to Israel. The Arab dictators themselves, as they invent rationalizations and diversions, are being self-centered as most non-ideologically motivated human beings are in comparable circumstances. They are also thereby demonstrating the ideological ineptness of their versions of religion, religion is ostensibly inherently ideological, to which they subscribe.
Obama may see more clearly than Friedman that the US will not indefinitely be able to sustain the farces necessary to support Zionism, which leaves that ideological movement the choices of either accommodation to the concerns of the Palestinians or defeat.
Or Friedman may see more clearly than Obama that there is no such thing as an accommodation to the concerns of the Palestinians that will stave off defeat. Leaving the choices of a prolonged status quo or the defeat of Zionism.
One thing that is clear is that the process, now openly described by both its supporters and detractors as intrinsically dishonest, of making illusory progress towards peace to cover the interest of those aligned with Zionism with maintaining the current situation is becoming more difficult for the US to support, both morally and in terms of resources, as the US becomes less able to bear those costs.