Right now, one should not rely on Obama's word to make judgement. He simply had said too much and done too little. In addition, he really has no leverage. No matter how pissed off Obama might be now, he cannot punish Israel without worrying about the political retaliation driven by Israel lobby. So, yeah, Obama probably has already lost on this issue, once for all.

For what's it worth, one agrees totally with Marc Lynch. The appearance of victory for Mr. Netanyahu is really an illusion, and above all, it is Mr. Netanyahu whom should remember that, he will have more than three years still of President Obama.
Abu Mazen says that, the difference between himself and Mr. Netanyahu, is that he wants a reference for the peace negotiations; the reference being, borders, the future of Jerusalem and the right of return for the Palesitnian refugees; all agreed to by President Obama in his speech today, while he claims that, Mr. Netanyahu wants negotiations without any reference.
One also shares at the same time, Dr. Lynch's pessimism regarding the outcome of those peace negotiations; indeed if they ever proceed, simply because it is not apparent to date, what mechanism President Obama is willing to activate, in order to induce the Israeli government to negotiate over the "reference" of the two-state solution he has talked about in his speech. President Obama is certainly showing teeth when it comes to Iran and North Korea, but nothing even remotely comaprable when it comes to Israel.
One is certainly exaggerating the role of President Obama, because for the last decade or so, one had ceased to believe that, a solution to the Palesitnian problem can be achieved from within the region. In other words, one stopped believing a very long time ago, that both the Arabs and the Israelis are capable of achieving peace on their own. Unfortunately, the solution will have to be "imposed" from outside, just as the problem was initially "created"from the outside. At least now, since President Obama doesn't seem to want to be part of the current problem, then hopefully, he may prove to be part of the solution.

khairi janbek.paris/france

Big difference: Obama wants re-election and he needs Israel lobby's support on that. Obama's domestic agenda is the hostage.

Netanyahu actually has a freer hand. Obama is so unpopular in Israel that Netanyahu can benefit from this confrontation.

Americans have put Israel to such an important status that Netanyahu knows that he can cross the president of US to an extent and does not need to worry about the damage on Israel's national security interests.

When there is strong incentive and no responsibility attached to it, you bet that Netanyahu will enjoy the next 3 years of playing game with Obama.

One would say there is a big difference. For the first time we have an American president staking his name and personal involvement on the creation of a Palestinian state. I think many are not optimistic about the future of the peace negotiations; including yours sincerely, even if one goes a step further one doesn't think that the two-state solution is even viable, but when the whole international community supports it, I think it is important to support President Obama in having a go at it. Of course Mr. Netanyahu will play cat and mouse games with President Obama, if he allows him to do so, but let us remember that just as late Mr. Shamir had said at the time of Madrid 1991, that Israel will negotiate endlessly without giving anything away, and the same being currently repeated by Mr. Lieberman, we did have wadi Araba peace agreement between Jordan and Israel, as well as Oslo Agreement for better or worse, which gave the Palestinian leadership a foothold on Palestinian lands for the first time since 1967.
There are many lobbies in the US, concerned about the deterioration of relations between the US and Israel. Pressure here, goes both ways, and not just on President Obama. There are many people also in Israel, whom are not happy about the prospects of bad relations between the two countries; in this case also, there will be pressure on Mr. Netanyahu. For a start if I was Rahm Emmanuel, I would tell President Obama to play on those fears.

khairi janbek.paris/france

I've read that few American Presidents ever manage to really change foreign policy and that W. Bush (for better or worse) was one of them. If Obama really keeps to his strategy and forces Israel to back down on this one he might go down as another.

"And after all of the politics and all of the posturing, this is about the right of every human being to live with dignity and security. That is a lesson embedded in the three great faiths that call one small slice of Earth the Holy Land. And that is why – even though there will be setbacks, and false starts, and tough days – I will not waiver in my pursuit of peace.”

Why, I, er, maybe, almost, possibly see a ray of light. The President sounds emphatic. In contrast, Sen. Mitchell spoke in vague generalities, saying there were no preconditions or obstacles but he'd be damned if he were going to actually name any of them.

MY COMMENT: Netanyahu last week warned that Abbas will have to “decide if he is Arafat or Sadat.” So Abbas MUST CHOOSE between Arafat and Sadat. Furthermore, Bibi has decreed that Abbas damn well better choose Sadat and REPUDIATE Arafat. And when Abbas REPUDIATES Arafat, is that supposed to make him more popular with the Palestinians, or will it instead weaken Abbas and strengthen Hamas?

FROM THE “JERUSALEM POST”, 09/18/09: “Abu Mazen [Abbas] has to decide, is he Arafat or Sadat,” Netanyahu said. “If he is Sadat, he has to say what Sadat said: ‘It is over, we will recognize Israel as the national home of the Jewish people.’”

SOURCE – http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1253198148622&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

Why this black eye for American standing so delighted certain pundits is an interesting question.

It is indeed an interesting question. Also interesting will be seeing whether this sentence, one which if uttered by Stephen Walt would bring loud denunciations from David Rothkopf and others for making accusations of dual loyalties, will bring them from those quarters in this instance.

There is no denying that Bibi is good at the mediatic sound-bite, albeit more often than not, it is a superficial PR exercise.
Of course he can claim what he likes form others, because he finds it easy to renounce the legacy of late Mr. Rabin himself. One doesn't personally recall at all that, late President Sadat acknowledged Israel as the Jewish state. (If anyone knows for a fact that he did, I would appreciate it if we all can be informed). He accepted Israel's right to exist and intended by his historic trip to Israel, to start a framework for a peaceful solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. It seems to me, that Bibi is falsifying modern history, in order to be able to bind the notions of accepting " Israel's Right to Exist" with the notion of " the Jewish Character of Israel" together.
From this prespective, anyone whom would reject the exclusivist notion of Israel's Jewishness, would be denying its right to exist. Of course, this is just another way of saying to Abu Mazen and the Arab hosts of Palestinian refugees; forget about the right of return for the Palestinian refugees.
The PNA accepted the right of Israel's existence since the days of late Mr. Arafat, but neither Abu Mazen, nor late Abu Ammar before him could say to the Palestinian refugees, you can't go back to your homes in Palestine, while every Jewish person from all over the world can go to Israel and settle as an Israeli citizen, and also the over one million Arab citizens in Israel, have no status because they are not Jewish. Indeed no Arab state that hosts Palestinian refugees, would accept such an idea either, even if Abu Mazen accepts it, without any international framework established, regarding this particular problem.
The Palestinian refugees problem, is really far more complicated and requires far more debates, analysis, proposals to solve, than a mere Bibi banal utterances within or without the Jewishness notion of Israel.

khairi janbek.paris/france

With the war of necessity now being Afghanistan, is it really useful to dwell so much on the antics of the Israelis and Palestinians? Will the photo-ops and sound bytes so indepthly discussed by Dr. Lynch change anything on the ground in Afghanistan? Does Mullah Omar care? Do the Taliban-sympathizers in western Pakistan care? It seems to me that this whole peace process navel-gazing is an exercise in futility when the Middle East is bleeding red in Af-Pak. We need more focus on these issues, Dr. Lynch. Plus, you don't seem to be taking the unravelling in places like Somalia and Yemen seriously. If you think they are unimportant, please explain why, because it seems that these places, where Al-Qaeda is active, are not getting enough play and awareness.

I wish President Obama would publicly join the international consensus and go beyond characterizing the settlements as not "legitiment" by saying, "America does not accept the legality of the settlements."