With the greatest respect to other commentators they often see events as frozen in time the logical extension being that once a favourable situation is reached, all is well. That, of course, is not true. Indeed, the Middle East is a classic example of the scary fluidity of events and the unpredictable nature of revolutionary governments. Emerging democracies may well be great to observe but not so great to live with.

President Obama’s recent speech supporting the 1967 borders for Israel / Palestine is one of the most significant presidential utterances of the past decade or more. What’s surprising is that it’s seen by many as an abandonment of Israel. There is a basic in the regional nest of adders which time has obscured: the Israeli-occupied territories are designated occupied territory by the United Nations and thus illegal and that the fact that Israel prefers the term "Disputed Territories" does not alter this. What President Obama has done is support for the UN on a very basic declaration of its constitutional obligation. Of course Obama opens a nasty political situation, it being assumed that support of Israel no matter what the circumstances is critical to his chance of re-election next year.

I dispute that. Official Jewish organizations will condemn the president but that scarcely says that all Jews disagree with him. The “settlements” policy of Israel is not, by any means, unanimously supported by Jewish voters and Obama knows that. He also knows that Republicans have received, and will receive support from Jews no matter what Obama does… The president has the keenest understanding of the American elector since John Francis Kennedy.

I employ the “basic question rule” (feel free to use it dear readers!) and the basic question for Israel is this: what possible excuse can there be for building settlements on land that doesn’t belong to you? That you have done this over many years doesn’t alter the fact that you are in fundamental breach of International Law.

How does this change in US policy affect the political cauldron in North Africa and the Middle East including Iran? This is, to use ancient words, the $64,000 question. In dealing with it one must bear in mind that democracies have at least two parties, one in power, the other wanting to be. What sort of political stew does that brew?

First let’s remember that there Arab neighbours have not invaded Israel for over 40 years – rather it’s been Israel invading its neighbours. We can assume from this that there is a great deal of anti-Israel feeling in its neighbourhood. This takes us to the basic assumed truth – Arab countries hate Israel and democracy isn’t going top change that although settling the Palestine question will no doubt ameliorate it.

While it’s true that Arab nations have language, religion, and much history on common, they have shown a remarkable inability to make common cause on anything. When one thinks about that, Latin America (with the exception of Brazil) has a common language, a common religion and, to some degree a common ethnicity and history but we never ask why they haven’t come together and have fought many wars amongst themselves. I’m no sociology major but I think we can take it that Arab countries won’t make common cause under democracy any more than the Egypt-Syria United Arab Republic of 1958 could last for 3 years even though it sprang from the perfidious alliance of Israel, Britain and France who invaded Egypt on a pretext.

But what if all Arab countries and Iran become democracy loving regimes? Why won’t that be in Israel’s best interest? Because no party wishing power – and they all do – can seek election on the basis of love for Israel. Most likely, parties, both in power and wanting to be, will focus on Palestine and ask, again, the simple question: President Obama, you and the “West” persisted in your demands that we bring democracy to our nations, we’ve done that and see our brothers and sisters in Palestine denied the very thing you demanded of us.

When, if, democracies come, the question will not be should we intervene in Palestine but when and how? Parties in an election will not divide on this issue if only because to do so would be political suicide.

I’ve ignored the most important conundrum of all – what about Saudi Arabia? It has been the most stable country in the region even though for the worst of reasons. Will the spread of democracy in neighbouring countries destabilize the Saudi ruthless kingdom?

What then? A malignant dictatorship cannot last. What will a new Arabia, sans the Saudi, have as a policy towards Israel? In many ways, the US has acted towards the Saudi royal family as Franklin Roosevelt did towards the despot Trujillo in the Dominican Republic when he said:”he may be a son of a bitch but at least he’s our son of a bitch”.

The indications are that President Obama recognizes that America is running out of its sons of bitches and that a new players, however different they may be from one another, means that a new game is in progress. What then will the President do? Remembering that right wing Jewish Americans see the Republicans, especially the “Tea Party” and the religious right as a newer, more friendly home and that something must be done to satisfy his own party, Obama will continue to tighten the screws on Israel…

The outlook is scary. The settlements issue, the right of Palestinians to return to their homes, the military safety of the State of Israel are in a new and more dangerous looking focus. With the election campaign of November 2012 already under way, Obama must act with a speed his predecessors could not do. In fact, the previous presidents who got personally into the matter, came up with documents of pious platitudes which Israel or Palestine would find reasons to do nothing.

President Obama knows that he must solve the Gordian knot or lose. Whatever else Barack Obama is, he’s not a good loser.