As we have all noticed, US Pres. Obama is not particularly happy with Israel as was pointed out in Aluf Benn's Op Ed (July 28) in the New York Times. The president has taken one issue - settlement expansion - and made it into the central subject of contention between Israel and the Arab/Moslem world. Even Benn, who writes for the solidly left wing Haaretz newspaper believes Obama should attempt to speak with us directly and not through emissaries and dictates. Although one should not expect this to happen anytime soon such presidential silence will not halt what can be perceived as the emerging Permanent Status Agreement between Israel and the Arab/Moslem world going well beyond settlement issues.

Below we will deal with the Palestinian issue in particular.

* Obama demands an Israeli withdrawal to the 1949-67 Armistice lines with the possibility of one to one land swaps, meaning Israel will be able to keep settlement blocs in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria), just east of the 1967 lines but must compensate the Palestinians by conceding other lands inside of pre-1967 demarcation to the west. This will lead to gerrymandering national state borders with mutual protrusions on both sides. A security fence will run between Israel and the newly formed Palestinian State, yet internal security on the Palestinian side will be left to the Palestinian security apparatus now being developed by US Gen. Dayton in conjunction with the Fatah led Abbas-Fayyad government in Ramallah. It appears Israel will not have the right of "hot pursuit" in apprehending terrorists and certainly will be forbidden the leeway necessary to capture terrorists when they are still inside the West Bank cities before their plans have gone operational. Preventive forays and incursions will no longer be permitted.

The security fence will become a first and last line of defense against terrorism and Low Intensity Conflict (guerilla war) initiatives. At the moment it appears Dayton's Palestinian force will do the job but who knows what will be even five years from now. Israel could certainly be hamstrung.

* Jerusalem on the national level will be a split city - Jewish neighborhoods will remain in Israel even should they be across the 1967 lines and the Arab neighborhoods will become part of the Palestinian State. On the municipal level it is unclear whether the city will be governed as one or two. Most important of all is what happens in the "Holy Basin" including the Old City (Jewish Quarter and Temple Mt. - mosques included). Will this area be ruled by an international consortium? Who will supply the police force and under whose laws and jurisdiction does this all fall?

* Israel's security border is the Jordan River and therefore very different from the meandering nation state boundaries (including Jerusalem) indicated above. Since 1967 virtually everyone ready to recognize an independent Palestinian State has insisted it be demilitarized and that Israel have control over the Jordan River defensive line as a bulwark against an attack from the east. The Allon Plan spoke of a security zone some 15 kilometers wide (approx: 10 miles) while at Camp David 2000 then PM Ehud Barak insisted on an Israeli presence through patrols and observation posts along the western side of the Jordan River.

It was reported in the largest Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot that the American administration is considering international forces with possible Israeli contingents for overall security detail throughout the West Bank Palestinian State-to-be. Does this also include Israel's natural defense line along the Jordan River?

* In return for the full Israeli withdrawal it appears the Palestinians will have to agree to no refugee return while receiving some form of compensation as offered in UN Res. 194 (Dec. 1948). Who will pay it and how much compensation will be given is unknown.

Another question not even being addressed by the Obama administration is where is the compensation for the one million Jews forced to leave Arab/Moslem countries due to anti-Semitism, pogroms, anti-Jewish economic legislation and virtual expulsion orders of those governments in the 1948 - 67 era? Are Jewish refugees worth less that Palestinian Arabs?

* On the legal side there is the question as to who is responsible for the conflict. The previous Palestinian chairman (or president) Yasir Arafat insisted Israel accept 100% responsibility for the conflict making the Jewish State not only a pariah among the nations but leaving it open to every lawsuit thinkable as a result of the national clash. One would expect joint responsibility to be taken for the conflict and its results as expressed in the Jordanian-Israeli peace accord.

Although the focus here is on Palestinian-Israeli conflict resolution, certain regional factors must be taken into consideration as affects the Palestinians (Syria and Lebanon will not be discussed at present). Jordan separates Israel's security border from Iraq and is seen as a pro-Western buffer state. Stability in the Palestinian West Bank State is predicated on continuing Fatah dominance supported by the American trained Palestinian forces constituting more of a military infantry unit than a police force. Should either the Palestinians and/or the Jordanians be destabilized by Islamism as expressed through World Jihad and/or Al-Qaeda, Israel will face major security threats. Should it be the Palestinians, we will see the return of a Low Intensity Conflict and Terror Offensive similar to what happened at the direction of Yasir Arafat from 2000-04. To successfully defeat such an Islamist terror initiative Israel will have no choice other than to engage in offensive operations in the West Bank.

This would certainly lead to a clash with the Obama administration who demand a Palestinian curtailment of terrorism but rule out any "offensive" moves by Israel to ensure its own security. Such a policy would be similar to that of Jimmy Carter's administration condemning Israel for responding to terror attacks originating from south Lebanon in the late 1970s by sending in ground forces. Or let us not forget the first year of the George W. Bush presidency when Israel was constantly urged to restrain itself despite continual bombings and terror attacks against civilians. Only in the aftermath of 9/11 did the Bush administration truly shift gears.

Jordan in its present form could collapse from extremist Sunni pressures emanating from western Iraq after the American pull-out in another two years. The long border between Jordan and Israel would heat up with terror attempts at infiltration along the Jordan River, to be patrolled by an international force. How long and how many casualties would such a force be willing to endure before the participating nations would pull out? How quickly will the Palestinian infantry/police force and government compromise with the Islamists? Or better yet, Islamist influences on the Palestinian population could bring a shift in support for Hamas. Israel's Jordan River defensive border would collapse and the existence of the Jewish State would be thrown into jeopardy.

Iraq's future is very unpredictable but the internal breakdown into a three state solution of Sunnis in the west, Shiites in the east under the Iranian umbrella and Kurds in the north is as reasonable as any other. Not only could there be extremist Sunni pressure on Jordan and the Palestinians but Shiite Khomeinist Iran has no qualms about activating the Hezbollah from south Lebanon against Israel while making inroads into extremist Sunni elements in the West Bank, repeating what was done in the Gaza Strip when the Fatah security forces were defeated by Hamas. Iran is attempting to destabilize both Egypt and apparently Jordan through Hezbollah and Hamas operatives with the double objectives of implanting Islamist regimes in those countries and imperiling Israeli security.

Much of the Middle East future will be determined by the impending US-Iranian clash over influence in Iraq. The Khamenei-Ahmadinejad government in Tehran sees Khomeinist Shiite control over Iraq as a major foreign policy objective just across the border. It does not appear that the Obama administration nor anyone in the West will be willing to make the sacrifices necessary to halt such Iranian advances.

Finally Obama is seeking an international forum similar to Geneva (after the 1973 Yom Kippur War) or Madrid (after the Gulf War of 1991) to achieve regional and global consensus for a Middle East peace between Israel and the Arab/Islamic world. Although all the issues mentioned above are of significance the major stumbling block is whether the Arab/Moslem world will accept Jewish national/religious rights and legitimacy to a sovereign state in the ancient Israelite homeland in the heart of the Middle East free of continued threats and the real possibility of annihilation.

Conferences and declarations are very nice on paper, but will the Arab/Moslem world internalize the agreements and teach their children that the Jews have the right to independence in their homeland no less than any other nation in the world, including themselves?