I've opinions about the situation in the Middle East, based upon experiences acquired while serving with the U.S. Air Force Security Service during the 1960s â€” and again while working in the profession of journalism during the 1970s. Judging from the posts to this thread so far, these opinions will not be popular.
When it comes to the Israel-Palestine issue, currently or historically, there's plenty of lying to go around. There's enough "black operations," crimes against humanity and war crimes to go around as well. There aren't any "good guys in white hats" holding leadership positions in Israel or amongst the Palestinian people.
Establishments in the U.S.A. have never presented the Israel-Palestine scenario in a balanced and fair manner. The Palestinians â€” who were removed from their homes by force of arms in the 1940s and continue to be so removed today â€” have always been painted as the "bad guys" by U.S.A. academics, artists, journalists and politicians. Sadly, that simplistic-dichotomy propaganda campaign has sunk deep roots in this country.
A most clever and convenient lever is used to hold that disinformation campaign in place: the equating of opposition to policies of the government of Israel with anti-Semitism. Using tactics similar to Taiwan's infamous "China lobby" at Washington during the 1940s and 1950s, which would instantly brand any anti-Chiang utterances as "communistic" or "anti-democratic," the pro-Israel lobby at Washington has succeeded in intimidating the federal government: Any opposition by U.S.A. politicians to policies of the government of Israel, or any attempt by any establishment to shine light upon the actions of the government of Israel, is immediately branded "anti-Semitic."
That buzz phrase strikes fear into many hearts, especially at election time or at broadcast-license renewal time, thus mitigating against any objective assessment of the behavior of the government of Israel by U.S.A. establishments. However, no such constraint is placed upon criticisms directed at the government of the Palestinian people.
Until such time as balanced and fair reportage from the Middle East is forthcoming via journalistic media in the U.S.A., I shall continue to rely upon "foreign" sources for news of developments in that part of the world. I would suggest others do the same.
Regarding the U.S.A. government becoming involved in the Middle East situation, I think it's a matter of sublimation: As long as there's a "foreign crisis" at hand for big headlines, the politicians at Washington need not publicly concern themselves with troublesome domestic matters. The government of Israel surely doesn't need our help! They've got all the best military weaponry the U.S.A. can provide, including nuclear weapons.
(As an aside, I must point out the imbalance there: The Palestinians have automatic small arms, limited anti-tank weapons and limited land-mine capabilities; the Israelis have such things in unlimited quantity plus air power, armor, artillery and nuclear weapons. Bear in mind the targeting of civilians as "legitimate" military targets was exemplified by the U.S. Army during the Civil War [General William T. Sherman]; and it was "perfected" by the Allies during the Second World War, e.g.
, fire bombings and nuclear bombings of civilian populations.)
Mind, I'd be very pleased if Colin Powell managed to somehow bring the warring factions together; but there's no incentive for the government of Israel to make peace. Ironically, they're Goliath to the Palestinians' David. I believe if the U.S.A. didn't occasionally send big-shot politicians to that region, Palestinians would have long since ceased to exist as a people.