The current debate among Israelis about a prisoner exchange with Hamas has been consumed by a narrow discussion of short-term gains and losses for both sides, evading the bigger picture of a future reconciliation between the two parties. It is time for both Israel and Hamas to recognize that there is no escape from one another. The deal that would presumably trade Gilad Shalit, Israel's soldier who was captured in 2006 by Hamas, for approximately 1,000 Palestinian prisoners should be utilized as a precursor for future negotiations between Israel and Hamas. The prisoner exchange offers an opportunity to enlarge the scope of the negotiations and put to end the long and mutually debilitating conflict from which neither side can benefit.

What makes this war unusual and certainly unnecessary was that Iraq under Saddam Hussein never posed a direct threat to the security of the United States. The war was both ill-conceived, and in retrospect, it was also ill executed.

As the continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have proved, the brawn or logic of the US and its allies alone will not suffice to create stability in the Middle East. To this effect, a careful cultural and psychological reading of what has moved the Middle East in the past eight years is critical to understanding the crossroads we are at today.

When Turkey barred Israel from a joint military exercise earlier this October, there was a great deal of speculation about the seriousness of a rift between the two allies. Although the strategic relations between the two regional superpowers is critical to both nations it also transcends the bilateral benefits that Turkey and Israel individually derive from it.

Earlier this month, what should have been a multinational exhibit of military cooperation between the Turkish Air Force and its counterparts in the US, Italy, and Israel, has become yet another political snub in the growing public rift between Turkey and Israel. The joint exercise, which takes place every few years, was cancelled indefinitely after Turkey withdrew Israel's participation, causing the US and Italy to forgo the exercise in response. This public rebuff is one of many in a string of events that has shown Turkey's visceral frustration with Israel's handling of its incursion into Gaza late last year.

President Obama needs to define his goals candidly when it comes to counter-insurgency, counter-terrorism and nation-building, especially as he considers sending additional troops to bolster these efforts.

Although the Obama administration's efforts to resume the Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations have not, as yet, produced tangible results, the prospect for a breakthrough in negotiations may be closer today than it has been in many years. Notwithstanding the inherent skepticism about the prospect of real progress, the conversion of certain regional and international developments have altered the political dynamic and created a new set of opportunities for a negotiated settlement.

Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad's unveiling of his government program to build the apparatus of a Palestinian state within two years is an admirable, bold and welcome imitative. For sixty years the Palestinians have been accused by Israel and the international community of being weak, fragmented, and harboring extremist ideologies. The plan of the thirteenth Palestinian National Authority government not only represents a blueprint for the government to address these inherent problems, but it is the first outline for a viable Palestinian state based on freedom, democracy, non-violence and international law.

Whereas it was critically important for the Obama administration to improve its relations with the Arab states to regain its moral footing and influence, it absolutely cannot undermine the nature of US-Israeli special relations.